xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH] XFS #if abuses

To: viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, hch@xxxxxx
Subject: Re: [PATCH] XFS #if abuses
From: Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2004 15:46:57 +1000
Cc: torvalds@xxxxxxxx, linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <E1C1IcT-00080j-F2@www.linux.org.uk>
References: <E1C1IcT-00080j-F2@www.linux.org.uk>
Sender: linux-xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.3i
On Sun, Aug 29, 2004 at 06:52:49AM +0100, viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

This seems like unnecessary code churn to me.

These macros are used in this way so that some XFS kernel 
headers are the same as the userspace equivalents, so that
we don't end up maintaining diverged duplicate headers.

The patch could go further and remove __BYTE_ORDER, not
sure why that wasn't done.  But, whatever, I'd prefer it
isn't applied unless there's a compelling reason here
that I've overlooked (eg, it actually fixes something?).

thanks.

-- 
Nathan


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