From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Richard Knutsson <ricknu-0@student.ltu.se>
Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2007 22:28:35 +0000
Subject: Re: [KJ] Taking the Min and Max macro job
Message-Id: <45CCF593.6040500@student.ltu.se>
List-Id: <kernel-janitors.vger.kernel.org>
References: <20070207235145.GZ8991@Ahmed>
In-Reply-To: <20070207235145.GZ8991@Ahmed>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org

Mehul Jani wrote: 
> I believe Vignesh had confirmed the patch.....
>  
> So now this is going to be crazy we have 3 pairs of min/max to deal with
>  
> min()/max()
> min_t()/max_t()
> __min()/__max()
>  
> Can the first one be considered *redundant*
min()/max()? That is our crown-jewel. I think the order above is then 
one how to implement min/max. Use ex min() when possible. If min() does 
not work, use min_t(). If min_t() does not work, use __min() (if it will 
be accepted, that is). But you have to be more careful when using 
__min() since it can have side-effects.
> I was wondering that from the very first. calling MACRO(MACRO()) 
> somehow is dirty....Any suggestions !! 
Why? Calling function1(function2()) is ok (right?) and also when dealing 
with pci-ids you use macros in macros. And the way __min() is in min() 
and min_t() is also just common practice to reduce multiple declarations.

Richard Knutsson

_______________________________________________
Kernel-janitors mailing list
Kernel-janitors@lists.osdl.org
https://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/kernel-janitors