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 [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
