Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2009 19:20:34 +0200 From: Alban Hertroys <dalroi@solfertje.student.utwente.nl> To: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> Cc: Christoph Mallon <christoph.mallon@gmx.de>, FreeBSD Current <current@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: puzzling code in pcpu stuff Message-ID: <905E6A82-3E1D-4A74-936E-2B2B77C7B147@solfertje.student.utwente.nl> In-Reply-To: <4A75C50E.5020203@elischer.org> References: <4A756214.8010002@elischer.org> <4A756BA1.90002@gmx.de> <9A2BA686-016B-4B60-A247-7321C1E7F51A@solfertje.student.utwente.nl> <4A75C50E.5020203@elischer.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 2 Aug 2009, at 18:55, Julian Elischer wrote: > Alban Hertroys wrote: >> On 2 Aug 2009, at 12:34, Christoph Mallon wrote: >>> Julian Elischer schrieb: >>>> I simplified the output of the preprocessor for a PCPU_SET(xx, >>>> newval) >>>> (to look at it). >> Speaking as an outsider I'd better be careful with any criticism, >> but the first thing I noticed here was the lack of comments. From >> Julian's question it seems obvious that this function could do with >> some. I wonder what people would make of this in a couple of years >> when none of the (then) active developers has any intimate >> knowledge of the workings of functions like this one? > > there are no comments in this cut-n-paste because it is the output > of the C preprocessor.. of course the source doesn't have many > comments either.. (in i386/include/pcpu.h) Ah, I missed the first line of your message! Yes, looking at the macro definitions that's a lot more like I expected. It's just an assignment to *__PCPU_PTR(name), which is quite clear actually. A bit of a relief I must say :) Alban Hertroys -- If you can't see the forest for the trees, cut the trees and you'll see there is no forest. !DSPAM:930,4a75cae310135211110206!
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?905E6A82-3E1D-4A74-936E-2B2B77C7B147>