[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20070503231814.e12ad2d7.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Thu, 3 May 2007 23:18:14 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: "Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday@...dspring.com>
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Rewrite the MAJOR() macro as a call to imajor().
On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 06:23:54 -0400 (EDT) "Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday@...dspring.com> wrote:
> Replace the MAJOR() macro invocation with a call to the inline
> imajor() routine.
>
> Signed-off-by: Robert P. J. Day <rpjday@...dspring.com>
>
> ---
>
> diff --git a/drivers/block/loop.c b/drivers/block/loop.c
> index 6b5b642..08da15b 100644
> --- a/drivers/block/loop.c
> +++ b/drivers/block/loop.c
> @@ -710,7 +710,7 @@ static inline int is_loop_device(struct file *file)
> {
> 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.
I don't want to receive 200 one-line patches please. If you're going to
do this then please do decent-sized per-subsystem patches and see if you can
persuade the subsystem maintainers to take them directly.
-
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