Re: Constant byteorder macros.

From: H. Peter Anvin (hpa@www.transmeta.com)
Date: Fri Jan 21 2000 - 15:46:23 EST

Next message: Matthew Kirkwood: "Re: [patch-2.3.40-pre6] kzalloc() (ala kmem_zalloc() of SVR4)"
Previous message: Niloufer Vajifdar: "access_ok problem through system_call"
In reply to: Francois-Rene Rideau: "Re: Constant byteorder macros."
Next in thread: Alan Cox: "Re: Constant byteorder macros."
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Followup to: <20000121154727.A2247@ZhengHe.augustin.thierry>
By author: Francois-Rene Rideau <fare@tunes.org>
In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel
>
> Anyway, in such cases as this one where a satisfying patch is available,
> it costs more to argue about the issue than to apply the patch. Doesn't it?
>

No, this isn't a cleanup. This is going backwards toward a
harder-to-read kernel. __builtin_constant_p() is so widely used in
the kernel that saying that we should avoid it for <instance foo> is
silly. Use it throughout and make the code easier to read, thanks.

-hpa

-- <hpa@transmeta.com> at work, <hpa@zytor.com> in private! "Unix gives you enough rope to shoot yourself in the foot."

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

Next message: Matthew Kirkwood: "Re: [patch-2.3.40-pre6] kzalloc() (ala kmem_zalloc() of SVR4)"
Previous message: Niloufer Vajifdar: "access_ok problem through system_call"
In reply to: Francois-Rene Rideau: "Re: Constant byteorder macros."
Next in thread: Alan Cox: "Re: Constant byteorder macros."
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jan 23 2000 - 21:00:26 EST