Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2010 19:42:40 +0300 From: Andriy Gapon <avg@freebsd.org> To: John Baldwin <jhb@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: <4C90F780.8080402@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <4C90F4B9.3060400@freebsd.org> References: <201009151002.o8FA2kvO029237@svn.freebsd.org> <201009151157.24735.jhb@freebsd.org> <4C90F361.4090106@freebsd.org> <4C90F4B9.3060400@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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? -- Andriy Gapon
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4C90F780.8080402>