Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2] Xen/atomic: use static inlines instead of macros

[Keir Fraser <keir.xen@xxxxxxxxx>]

Tim Deegan wrote:
> At 10:55 +0000 on 28 Mar (1396000508), Andrew Cooper wrote:
> > This is some coverity-inspired tidying.
> >
> > Coverity has some grief analysing the call sites of atomic_read().  This is
> > believed to be a bug in Coverity itself when expanding the nested macros, but
> > there is no legitimate reason for it to be a macro in the first place.
> >
> > This patch changes {,_}atomic_{read,set}() from being macros to being static
> > inline functions, thus gaining some type safety.
> >
> > One issue which is not immediately obvious is that the non-atomic variants take
> > their atomic_t at a different level of indirection to the atomic variants.
> >
> > This is not suitable for _atomic_set() (when used to initialise an atomic_t)
> > which is converted to take its parameter as a pointer.  One callsite of
> > _atomic_set() is updated, while the other two callsites are updated to
> > ATOMIC_INIT().
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Andrew Cooper<andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
>
> Reviewed-by: Tim Deegan<tim@xxxxxxx>
>
> FWIW, I approve of converting both kinds of accessors to inlines, just
> on general principles.


Agreed, functions are preferable to macros.

Acked-by: Keir Fraser <keir@xxxxxxx>

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel