xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Parenthesize macros in xfs

To: Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Parenthesize macros in xfs
From: Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 08:46:19 +1100
Cc: linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <Pine.LNX.4.61.0603202239110.11933@yvahk01.tjqt.qr>; from jengelh@linux01.gwdg.de on Mon, Mar 20, 2006 at 10:39:45PM +0100
References: <Pine.LNX.4.61.0603202207310.20060@yvahk01.tjqt.qr> <20060321082327.B653275@wobbly.melbourne.sgi.com> <Pine.LNX.4.61.0603202239110.11933@yvahk01.tjqt.qr>
Sender: linux-xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.2.5i
Hi Jan,

On Mon, Mar 20, 2006 at 10:39:45PM +0100, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> >> while browsing through the xfs/linux source, I noticed that many macros do 
> >> not do proper bracing. I have started to cook up a patch, but would like 
> >> feedback first before I continue for nothing.
> >> It goes like this:
> >> ...
> >
> >That looks fine.  Please be sure to work on the -mm tree or on
> >CVS on oss.sgi.com, so as to reduce your level of patch conflict.
> >
> 
> Hm, would not it even be better to make them 'static inline' functions?

Probably, I guess I'd want to see how invasive the patch becomes...?
I really dislike those _ACL macros (around that example you gave, that
could do with a cleanup all of its own - switching to xfs_acl_ maybe).
Also watch for macros that modify their parameters, I got burned by
doing an inline conversion a few releases back on just such a beast..

cheers.

-- 
Nathan


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