From owner-svn-src-all@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Sep 15 16:42:44 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-src-all@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0ACE01065743; Wed, 15 Sep 2010 16:42:44 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from avg@freebsd.org) Received: from citadel.icyb.net.ua (citadel.icyb.net.ua [212.40.38.140]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E78A8FC25; Wed, 15 Sep 2010 16:42:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from odyssey.starpoint.kiev.ua (alpha-e.starpoint.kiev.ua [212.40.38.101]) by citadel.icyb.net.ua (8.8.8p3/ICyb-2.3exp) with ESMTP id TAA12506; Wed, 15 Sep 2010 19:42:40 +0300 (EEST) (envelope-from avg@freebsd.org) Message-ID: <4C90F780.8080402@freebsd.org> Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2010 19:42:40 +0300 From: Andriy Gapon User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD amd64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.9) Gecko/20100909 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: John Baldwin References: <201009151002.o8FA2kvO029237@svn.freebsd.org> <201009151157.24735.jhb@freebsd.org> <4C90F361.4090106@freebsd.org> <4C90F4B9.3060400@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <4C90F4B9.3060400@freebsd.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: svn-src-head@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r212647 - head/sys/sys X-BeenThere: svn-src-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "SVN commit messages for the entire src tree \(except for " user" and " projects" \)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2010 16:42:44 -0000 on 15/09/2010 19:30 Andriy Gapon said the following: > SET_DECLARE would expand to exactly those two lines. > I am not sure why comment even said that it's impossible to use SET_DECLARE(), > perhaps previously it used to expand to something bigger? Having said that, I am not sure if it makes logical sense to use SET_DECLARE() in pcpu.h. Family of SET_* macros seems to be geared towards sets that contain arrays of identical items (e.g. see SET_ITEM, SET_COUNT). set_pcpu reserves space for items of various types and sizes. So I am not sure if using any SET_* macros would not be confusing in the future. What do you think? -- Andriy Gapon