Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 16:25:00 -0400 From: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> To: Luigi Rizzo <rizzo@icir.org> Cc: current@freebsd.org, fabio@gandalf.sssup.it Subject: Re: 'static inline' vs macros for kernel functions ? (was how to handle name clashes in linux/freebsd kernel sources ?) Message-ID: <200706261625.00565.jhb@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <20070626123130.A58530@xorpc.icir.org> References: <20070626040758.A48170@xorpc.icir.org> <20070626123130.A58530@xorpc.icir.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tuesday 26 June 2007 03:31:30 pm Luigi Rizzo wrote: > This is related to the post attached at the end of this email. > > In this commit: > > CVS log for src/sys/sys/systm.h > Revision 1.252: download - view: text, markup, annotated - select for diffs > Fri Mar 9 22:41:01 2007 UTC (3 months, 2 weeks ago) by jhb > > msleep() changed from a function to a macro wrapping _sleep(). > > Being a macro, it is a lot harder to hide it in case of name clashes > such as the one mentioned below. > > This raises the question - what is the point in using macros > in cases like this where we could use static inline function and > probably even exploit better compiler checks ? > > Would it be possible to revert msleep() to a real function ? FreeBSD already uses macros all over the place in sys/*.h. Go duke it out with bde@. :) You can always #undef msleep and redefine it to something else. -- John Baldwin
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200706261625.00565.jhb>