Re: [CRIU] [PATCH 2/4] ipc: move all checkpoint-restore code underappropriate define

[Stanislav Kinsbursky]

09.04.2012 23:47, Pavel Emelyanov ÐÐÑÐÑ:
> On 04/09/2012 09:54 PM, Stanislav Kinsbursky wrote:
> > All new checkpoint/restore code parts are now covered with
> > CONFIG_CHECKPOINT_RESTORE marco. So it would be easy to remove them, in case
> > the whole project fails.
> >
> > ---
> >   ipc/compat.c |    9 ++++++---
> >   ipc/msg.c    |   15 ++++++++++++++-
> >   2 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >
> > @@ -387,8 +388,10 @@ long compat_sys_msgrcv(int first, int second, int msgtyp, int third,
> >   		msgtyp = ipck.msgtyp;
> >   	}
> >   	return do_msgrcv(first, uptr, second, msgtyp, third,
> > -			 (third&  MSG_PEEK_ALL) ? compat_do_msg_peek_all
> > -						: compat_do_msg_fill);
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_CHECKPOINT_RESTORE
> > +			 (third&  MSG_PEEK_ALL) ? compat_do_msg_peek_all :
> > +#endif
> > +						compat_do_msg_fill);
>
> These ifdefs in the middle of the code look not very elegant. Is there a way
> to replace the checks they surround with static inline function (reporting
> 0 when CHECKPOINT_RESTORE is off) potentially letting the compiler optimize
> out the code sitting under if (0) ?

Yes, sure. I'll do this.

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