| To: | Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH 4/6] cleanup btree record / key / ptr addressing macros |
| From: | Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Wed, 17 Sep 2008 10:57:50 +1000 |
| Cc: | xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20080916174136.GC26187@lst.de> |
| Mail-followup-to: | Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| References: | <20080915004653.GE12213@lst.de> <20080916055333.GW5811@disturbed> <20080916174136.GC26187@lst.de> |
| Sender: | xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) |
On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 07:41:36PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 03:53:33PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 02:46:53AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > +#define XFS_BMAP_BROOT_PTR_ADDR(mp, bb, i, sz) \ > > > + XFS_BMBT_PTR_ADDR(mp, bb, i, xfs_bmbt_maxrecs(mp, sz, 0)) > > > > Ah, that explains why that macro didn't change. Why keep just this > > one? > > It seems borderline useful, but if you care strongly I can kill it. I don't really mind - i was just curious as to why that particular macro didn't get changed like all the others. Seems reasonable to leave it there.... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: read only remount not so happy, Christoph Hellwig |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [PATCH 5/6] always use struct xfs_btree_block instead of short / longform structures, Dave Chinner |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [PATCH 4/6] cleanup btree record / key / ptr addressing macros, Christoph Hellwig |
| Next by Thread: | [PATCH 4/6] cleanup btree record / key / ptr addressing macros, Christoph Hellwig |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |