[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0705040410390.20834@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Fri, 4 May 2007 04:14:26 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday@...dspring.com>
To: Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...ux01.gwdg.de>
cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Rewrite the MAJOR() macro as a call to imajor().
On Fri, 4 May 2007, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
>
> On May 3 2007 23:18, Andrew Morton wrote:
> >> struct inode *i = file->f_mapping->host;
> >>
> >> - return i && S_ISBLK(i->i_mode) && MAJOR(i->i_rdev) == LOOP_MAJOR;
> >> + return i && S_ISBLK(i->i_mode) && imajor(i) == LOOP_MAJOR;
> >> }
> >
> >there's no runtime change, and I count a couple hundred MAJORs in the tree.
>
> Why do we even have imajor() if all it does is calling the MAJOR()
> macro?
i'm guessing it's to hide the underlying implementation of
extracting the major/minor numbers from an inode, in case that
implementation ever changes, which strikes me as perfectly reasonable.
and i don't think you'd have any luck arguing that it should be
removed at this point:
$ grep -Erw "(imajor|iminor)" * | wc -l
350
all i was doing was standardizing the small handful of holdouts.
rday
--
========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day
Linux Consulting, Training and Annoying Kernel Pedantry
Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA
http://fsdev.net/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page
========================================================================
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists