On Wednesday 24 October 2007 15:09, Randy Dunlap wrote:
quoted text
> From: Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@oracle.com>
>
> Can we expand this macro definition, or should I look for a way to
> fool^W teach kernel-doc about this?
>
> scripts/kernel-doc says:
> Error(linux-2.6.24-rc1//include/asm-x86/bitops_32.h:188): cannot understand
> prototype: 'test_and_set_bit_lock test_and_set_bit '

Actually, it probably looks a bit nicer like this anyway. If you grep
for it, then you can actually see the parameters...

On third thoughts, an inline function might be the best thing to do,
and also avoid setting a bad example. What do you think?

quoted text
>
> Signed-off-by: Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@oracle.com>
> ---
>  include/asm-x86/bitops_32.h |    2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> --- linux-2.6.24-rc1.orig/include/asm-x86/bitops_32.h
> +++ linux-2.6.24-rc1/include/asm-x86/bitops_32.h
> @@ -185,7 +185,7 @@ static inline int test_and_set_bit(int n
>   *
>   * This is the same as test_and_set_bit on x86
>   */
> -#define test_and_set_bit_lock test_and_set_bit
> +#define test_and_set_bit_lock(nr, addr) test_and_set_bit(nr, addr)
>
>  /**
>   * __test_and_set_bit - Set a bit and return its old value
> ---
-
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/