From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from psmtp.com (na3sys010amx113.postini.com [74.125.245.113]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 648A96B0007 for ; Mon, 28 Jan 2013 20:44:20 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-pb0-f42.google.com with SMTP id wz17so590278pbc.29 for ; Mon, 28 Jan 2013 17:44:19 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 17:44:23 -0800 (PST) From: Hugh Dickins Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/11] ksm: trivial tidyups In-Reply-To: <20130128151119.b74d0150.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Message-ID: References: <20130128151119.b74d0150.akpm@linux-foundation.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Andrew Morton Cc: Petr Holasek , Andrea Arcangeli , Izik Eidus , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org On Mon, 28 Jan 2013, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 17:58:11 -0800 (PST) > Hugh Dickins wrote: > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_NUMA > > +#define NUMA(x) (x) > > +#define DO_NUMA(x) (x) > > Did we consider > > #define DO_NUMA do { (x) } while (0) > > ? It didn't occur to me at all. I like that it makes more sense of the DO_NUMA variant. Is it okay that, to work with the way I was using it, we need "(x);" in there rather than just "(x)"? > > That could avoid some nasty config-dependent compilation issues. > > > +#else > > +#define NUMA(x) (0) [PATCH] ksm: trivial tidyups fix Suggested by akpm: make DO_NUMA(x) do { (x); } while (0) more like the #else. Signed-off-by: Hugh Dickins --- mm/ksm.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) --- mmotm.org/mm/ksm.c 2013-01-27 09:55:45.000000000 -0800 +++ mmotm/mm/ksm.c 2013-01-28 16:50:25.772026446 -0800 @@ -43,7 +43,7 @@ #ifdef CONFIG_NUMA #define NUMA(x) (x) -#define DO_NUMA(x) (x) +#define DO_NUMA(x) do { (x); } while (0) #else #define NUMA(x) (0) #define DO_NUMA(x) do { } while (0) -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org