| 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <E1C1IcT-00080j-F2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| 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> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: setfattr comments, Nathan Scott |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [PATCH] XFS #if abuses, viro |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [PATCH] XFS #if abuses, Christoph Hellwig |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [PATCH] XFS #if abuses, viro |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |