xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH] XFS #if abuses

To: Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] XFS #if abuses
From: viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2004 06:00:36 +0100
Cc: viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, hch@xxxxxx, torvalds@xxxxxxxx, linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20040830054657.GC883@frodo>
References: <E1C1IcT-00080j-F2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20040830054657.GC883@frodo>
Sender: linux-xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
On Mon, Aug 30, 2004 at 03:46:57PM +1000, Nathan Scott wrote:
> 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?).

Ehh...

a) #if where #ifdef would be enough
b) use of (legitimate, but *ugly*) semantics of undefined identifiers in #if
(they are replaced with 0, all right, but more often than not it's *not* the
intended behaviour - same story as with assignment in conditional, etc.)

I can kill __BYTE_ORDER and its users - gladly.  But that's a separate series
of patches (already have some done).

Anyway, NAK is NAK.   Linus, the rest of series is independent from this one,
so just drop this patch - it won't affect others.


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