[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Xen-devel] cpu_*(), #define, and &


  • To: xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • From: George Dunlap <dunlapg@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 17:49:08 +0100
  • Delivery-date: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 09:49:34 -0700
  • Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject :from:to:content-type; b=w+0Fif9GiIkG9Vqo2TaJdrKFa3xQmXGjqB3rVtxnIqtdLD4reMeZ2uMLNDmwiEKkaX dKsJbh4yPItdolVgOk/bnLC4HZzOPzElw1dlg8uo21dMcql+HSJJ6QZFimvVA/AZaEiX tZWWePmESMtxge6TQmR91+EZn/1gqTNUnueh4=
  • List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>

I hope I'm not bikeshedding here
(http://catb.org/jargon/html/B/bikeshedding.html), but I'm not really
happy with the cpu_*() macros in cpumask.h adding ampersands before
the arguments.  In C (as opposed to C++), passing a non-pointer
generally means that no values are going to be changed.  Other than
Linux similarity, is there a good reason to do this in a macro, rather
than just having the caller provide the &?  Would anyone object to me
submitting a patch to change that?

(A patch to change it looks to be rather big and boring, so I want to
talk about it first before doing it...)

 -George

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel


 


Rackspace

Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our
servers 24x7x365 and backed by RackSpace's Fanatical Support®.