From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pf1-f198.google.com (mail-pf1-f198.google.com [209.85.210.198]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0C646B0377 for ; Tue, 6 Nov 2018 12:48:45 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-pf1-f198.google.com with SMTP id j9-v6so13034487pfn.20 for ; Tue, 06 Nov 2018 09:48:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-sor-f65.google.com (mail-sor-f65.google.com. [209.85.220.65]) by mx.google.com with SMTPS id c13-v6sor13040278pfc.26.2018.11.06.09.48.43 for (Google Transport Security); Tue, 06 Nov 2018 09:48:44 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <1541526521.196084.184.camel@acm.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH] slab.h: Avoid using & for logical and of booleans From: Bart Van Assche Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2018 09:48:41 -0800 In-Reply-To: References: <20181105204000.129023-1-bvanassche@acm.org> <20181105131305.574d85469f08a4b76592feb6@linux-foundation.org> <1541454489.196084.157.camel@acm.org> <1541457654.196084.159.camel@acm.org> <1541462466.196084.163.camel@acm.org> <1541464370.196084.166.camel@acm.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-7" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Alexander Duyck Cc: linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk, Andrew Morton , LKML , Vlastimil Babka , Mel Gorman , Christoph Lameter , guro@fb.com, Pekka Enberg , David Rientjes , Joonsoo Kim , linux-mm On Tue, 2018-11-06 at 09:20 -0800, Alexander Duyck wrote: +AD4 On Mon, Nov 5, 2018 at 4:32 PM Bart Van Assche +ADw-bvanassche+AEA-acm.org+AD4 wrote: +AD4 +AD4 +AD4 +AD4 On Mon, 2018-11-05 at 16:11 -0800, Alexander Duyck wrote: +AD4 +AD4 +AD4 If we really don't care then why even bother with the switch statement +AD4 +AD4 +AD4 anyway? It seems like you could just do one ternary operator and be +AD4 +AD4 +AD4 done with it. Basically all you need is: +AD4 +AD4 +AD4 return (defined(CONFIG+AF8-ZONE+AF8-DMA) +ACYAJg (flags +ACY +AF8AXw-GFP+AF8-DMA)) ? KMALLOC+AF8-DMA : +AD4 +AD4 +AD4 (flags +ACY +AF8AXw-GFP+AF8-RECLAIMABLE) ? KMALLOC+AF8-RECLAIM : 0+ADs +AD4 +AD4 +AD4 +AD4 +AD4 +AD4 Why bother with all the extra complexity of the switch statement? +AD4 +AD4 +AD4 +AD4 I don't think that defined() can be used in a C expression. Hence the +AD4 +AD4 IS+AF8-ENABLED() macro. If you fix that, leave out four superfluous parentheses, +AD4 +AD4 test your patch, post that patch and cc me then I will add my Reviewed-by. +AD4 +AD4 Actually the defined macro is used multiple spots in if statements +AD4 throughout the kernel. The only 'if (defined(' matches I found in the kernel tree that are not preprocessor statements occur in Perl code. Maybe I overlooked something? +AD4 The reason for IS+AF8-ENABLED is to address the fact that we can be +AD4 dealing with macros that indicate if they are built in or a module +AD4 since those end up being two different defines depending on if you +AD4 select 'y' or 'm'. >>From Documentation/process/coding-style.rst: Within code, where possible, use the IS+AF8-ENABLED macro to convert a Kconfig symbol into a C boolean expression, and use it in a normal C conditional: .. code-block:: c if (IS+AF8-ENABLED(CONFIG+AF8-SOMETHING)) +AHs ... +AH0 Bart.