[Top] [All Lists]


To: Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxx>
From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 11:28:05 -0600 (CST)
Cc: linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20040111114500.GA4508@averell>
Sender: linux-xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
Andi - I agree that it makes things hard to read.  I think
the purpose is to turn macros into functions, for use in
debugging (setting breakpoints & inspecting args).

As for removing them... that's a touchy subject.  The upside
is that the header files would be a little easier to read, although
once you get used to it your eyes can gloss over the mess.

The downside would be less flexibility in debugging, and divergence
of the Linux code from the Irix code, without adding any new
features or fixing any bugs.  We try to keep the Linux & Irix
code in sync whenever possible, so that the XFS engineering
resources we have can work on a common codebase, and hopefully
be more efficient at finding bugs and keeping features in sync.

I can ask around, but I think the preference would be to keep
them in place.


On Sun, 11 Jan 2004, Andi Kleen wrote:

> I found many of the XFS include files hard to read because 
> of XFS_WANTS_FUNCS. What use is that define? Is it still used 
> for anything? Would patches to remove it have a chance to be
> accepted?
> -Andi

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>