could some current.h files be simplified?

[Vladimir Murzin]

On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 10:54:59AM -0400, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> 
>   it *seems* as if a number of current.h files from various
> architectures could be simplified.  here's <asm-generic/current.h>,
> which gives any architecture a generic starting point in defining both
> get_current() and current:
> 
> #ifndef __ASM_GENERIC_CURRENT_H
> #define __ASM_GENERIC_CURRENT_H
> 
> #include <linux/thread_info.h>
> 
> #define get_current() (current_thread_info()->task)
> #define current get_current()
> 
> #endif /* __ASM_GENERIC_CURRENT_H */
> 
>   and if that's acceptable, any architecture is welcome to simply
> include it as, for instance, mips does in <asm/current.h>:
> 
> #include <asm-generic/current.h>
> 
> but here's the current.h file for parisc:
> 
> #ifndef _PARISC_CURRENT_H
> #define _PARISC_CURRENT_H
> 
> #include <linux/thread_info.h>
> 
> struct task_struct;
> 
> static inline struct task_struct * get_current(void)
> {
>         return current_thread_info()->task;
> }
> 
> #define current get_current()
> 
> #endif /* !(_PARISC_CURRENT_H) */
> 
>   i'm not sure i see why the generic version wasn't adequate for
> parisc (apart from the explicit pointer casting).  same thing with the
> cris architecture and, i'm sure, others.
> 
>   is there any reason why some of those current.h files can't just
> include the generic one?
> 
> rday
> 
> -- 
> 
> ========================================================================
> Robert P. J. Day                                 Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA
>                         http://crashcourse.ca
> 
> Twitter:                                       http://twitter.com/rpjday
> LinkedIn:                               http://ca.linkedin.com/in/rpjday
> ========================================================================
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Kernelnewbies mailing list
> Kernelnewbies at kernelnewbies.org
> http://lists.kernelnewbies.org/mailman/listinfo/kernelnewbies

Hi Robert

There is sense to use generic version where it is suitable. I think
you should propose you idea in linux-arch mail list. At least
generalization of arches code is usually welcome.

Best wishes
Vladimir Murzin