From owner-svn-src-all@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Sep 15 19:09:51 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 B9A39106564A; Wed, 15 Sep 2010 19:09:51 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jhb@freebsd.org) Received: from cyrus.watson.org (cyrus.watson.org [65.122.17.42]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 884498FC12; Wed, 15 Sep 2010 19:09:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from bigwig.baldwin.cx (66.111.2.69.static.nyinternet.net [66.111.2.69]) by cyrus.watson.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 152BD46B8D; Wed, 15 Sep 2010 15:09:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from jhbbsd.localnet (smtp.hudson-trading.com [209.249.190.9]) by bigwig.baldwin.cx (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3E64E8A03C; Wed, 15 Sep 2010 15:09:50 -0400 (EDT) From: John Baldwin To: Andriy Gapon Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2010 14:37:22 -0400 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.5 (FreeBSD/7.3-CBSD-20100819; KDE/4.4.5; amd64; ; ) References: <201009151002.o8FA2kvO029237@svn.freebsd.org> <4C90F4B9.3060400@freebsd.org> <4C90F780.8080402@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <4C90F780.8080402@freebsd.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201009151437.22412.jhb@freebsd.org> X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0.1 (bigwig.baldwin.cx); Wed, 15 Sep 2010 15:09:50 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.95.1 at bigwig.baldwin.cx X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=4.2 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.2.5 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.5 (2008-06-10) on bigwig.baldwin.cx 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 19:09:51 -0000 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