| 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; from jengelh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on Mon, Mar 20, 2006 at 10:39:45PM +0100 |
| References: | <Pine.LNX.4.61.0603202207310.20060@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20060321082327.B653275@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <Pine.LNX.4.61.0603202239110.11933@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| 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> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: Parenthesize macros in xfs, Jan Engelhardt |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | TAKE 948300 - idbg build fixup, Nathan Scott |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: Parenthesize macros in xfs, Jan Engelhardt |
| Next by Thread: | Re: Parenthesize macros in xfs, Jan Engelhardt |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |