Re: [PATCH 3/11] ksm: trivial tidyups

[Hugh Dickins]

On Mon, 28 Jan 2013, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 17:58:11 -0800 (PST)
> Hugh Dickins <hughd@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_NUMA
> > +#define NUMA(x)		(x)
> > +#define DO_NUMA(x)	(x)
> 
> Did we consider
> 
> 	#define DO_NUMA do { (x) } while (0)
> 
> ?

It didn't occur to me at all.  I like that it makes more sense of
the DO_NUMA variant.  Is it okay that, to work with the way I was
using it, we need "(x);" in there rather than just "(x)"?

> 
> That could avoid some nasty config-dependent compilation issues.
> 
> > +#else
> > +#define NUMA(x)		(0)

[PATCH] ksm: trivial tidyups fix

Suggested by akpm: make DO_NUMA(x) do { (x); } while (0) more like the #else.

Signed-off-by: Hugh Dickins <hughd@xxxxxxxxxx>
---

 mm/ksm.c |    2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

--- mmotm.org/mm/ksm.c	2013-01-27 09:55:45.000000000 -0800
+++ mmotm/mm/ksm.c	2013-01-28 16:50:25.772026446 -0800
@@ -43,7 +43,7 @@
 
 #ifdef CONFIG_NUMA
 #define NUMA(x)		(x)
-#define DO_NUMA(x)	(x)
+#define DO_NUMA(x)	do { (x); } while (0)
 #else
 #define NUMA(x)		(0)
 #define DO_NUMA(x)	do { } while (0)
--
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/