Re: [PATCH] genirq: ARM dyntick cleanup

[Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>]

On Sun, 2 Jul 2006, Andrew Morton wrote:
> 
> The requirement "if you implement this then you must do so as a macro" is a
> bit regrettable.  The ARCH_HAS_HANDLE_DYNAMIC_TICK approach would eliminate
> that requirement.

Btw, this is WRONG.

The whole "ARCH_HAS_XYZZY" is nothing but crap. It's totally unreadable, 
compared to the _much_ simpler

	#ifndef xyzzy
	#define zyzzy() /* empty */
	#endif

which is a hell of a lot more obvious to everybody involved, not to 
mention being a lot easier to "grep" for (try it - "grep xyzzy" ends up 
showing _exactly_ what is going on for cases like this, unlike the 
ARCH_HAS_XYZZY crap).

And no, it does not require implementing xyzzy as a macro AT ALL. 

You can very easily just do

	/*
	 * We have a very complex xyzzy, we don't even want to
	 * inline it!
	 */
	extern void xyxxy(...);

	/* Tell the rest of the world that we do it! */
	#define xyzzy xyzzy

and you're now all set. No need for a new stupid name like ARCH_HAS_XYZZY, 
which adds _nothing_ but unnecessary complexity ("What was the condition 
for using that symbol again?" and ungreppability).

WE SHOULD GET RID OF ARCH_HAS_XYZZY. It's a disease.

			Linus
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/