Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2010 14:37:22 -0400 From: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> To: Andriy Gapon <avg@freebsd.org> Cc: svn-src-head@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r212647 - head/sys/sys Message-ID: <201009151437.22412.jhb@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <4C90F780.8080402@freebsd.org> References: <201009151002.o8FA2kvO029237@svn.freebsd.org> <4C90F4B9.3060400@freebsd.org> <4C90F780.8080402@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wednesday, September 15, 2010 12:42:40 pm Andriy Gapon wrote: > 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? Hmm, you could use SET_START() and SET_LIMIT() at least, but it's not a big deal either way. The comment seemed to imply that it would have used SET_DECLARE() if there had not been technical difficulties. -- John Baldwin
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201009151437.22412.jhb>