linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 000 of 35] Refactor block layer to improve support for stacked devices.

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 2 Aug 2007 13:43:34 +1000
From:	Neil Brown <neilb@...e.de>
To:	"John Stoffel" <john@...ffel.org>
Cc:	Tejun Heo <teheo@...e.de>, Avi Kivity <avi@...o.co.il>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 000 of 35] Refactor block layer to improve support for
 stacked devices.

On Wednesday August 1, john@...ffel.org wrote:
> 
> In any case, why does something so complicated need to be a macro, why
> not a function instead?

There needs to be a macro so you can put a statement after it to be
executed "for each ..."
But you are right that it doesn't all need to be in the one macro.

The idea of something like

#define bio_for_each_segment_offset(bv, bio, _i, offset, _size) \
	for (bio_iterator_init(bio, &_i, &bv, offset, _size);	\
	     i.remaining > 0 ;					\
	     bio_next(bio, &_i, &bv))
	
with bio_iterator_init and bio_next being (inline?) functions is a
very good one.  I'll see what works.

Thanks,
NeilBrown
-
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/