[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100331134757.GA6132@us.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 08:47:57 -0500
From: "Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@...ibm.com>
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...e.de>,
Kay Sievers <kay.sievers@...y.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Cornelia Huck <cornelia.huck@...ibm.com>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
Benjamin LaHaise <bcrl@...et.ca>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] sysfs: Basic support for multiple super blocks
Quoting Eric W. Biederman (ebiederm@...ssion.com):
> Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> writes:
> >> index 30f5a44..030a39d 100644
> >> --- a/fs/sysfs/sysfs.h
> >> +++ b/fs/sysfs/sysfs.h
> >> @@ -114,6 +114,9 @@ struct sysfs_addrm_cxt {
> >> /*
> >> * mount.c
> >> */
> >> +struct sysfs_super_info {
> >> +};
> >> +#define sysfs_info(SB) ((struct sysfs_super_info *)(SB->s_fs_info))
> >
> > Another nit picking. It would be better to wrap SB in the macro
> > definition. Also, wouldn't an inline function be better?
>
> Good spotting. That doesn't bite today but it will certainly bite
> someday if it isn't fixed.
>
> I wonder how that has slipped through the review all of this time.
(let me demonstrate how: )
WTH are you talking about? Unless you mean doing (SB) inside
the definition?
I actually was going to suggest dropping the #define as it obscures
the code, but I figured it would get more complicated later.
-serge
--
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