[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <00da01d71f92$d9c76a50$8d563ef0$@samsung.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2021 12:16:00 +0900
From: "Namjae Jeon" <namjae.jeon@...sung.com>
To: "'Matthew Wilcox'" <willy@...radead.org>
Cc: <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-cifs@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-cifsd-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net>, <smfrench@...il.com>,
<senozhatsky@...omium.org>, <hyc.lee@...il.com>,
<viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, <hch@....de>, <hch@...radead.org>,
<ronniesahlberg@...il.com>, <aurelien.aptel@...il.com>,
<aaptel@...e.com>, <sandeen@...deen.net>,
<dan.carpenter@...cle.com>, <colin.king@...onical.com>,
<rdunlap@...radead.org>,
"'Sergey Senozhatsky'" <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
"'Steve French'" <stfrench@...rosoft.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 1/5] cifsd: add server handler and tranport layers
> On Tue, Mar 23, 2021 at 12:01:22PM +0900, Namjae Jeon wrote:
> > > On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 02:13:40PM +0900, Namjae Jeon wrote:
> > > > +#define RESPONSE_BUF(w) ((void *)(w)->response_buf)
> > > > +#define REQUEST_BUF(w) ((void *)(w)->request_buf)
> > >
> > > Why do you do this obfuscation?
> > I don't remember exactly, but back then, It looked easier...
> > >
> > > > +#define RESPONSE_BUF_NEXT(w) \
> > > > + ((void *)((w)->response_buf + (w)->next_smb2_rsp_hdr_off))
> > > > +#define REQUEST_BUF_NEXT(w) \
> > > > + ((void *)((w)->request_buf + (w)->next_smb2_rcv_hdr_off))
> > >
> > > These obfuscations aren't even used; delete them
> > They are used in many place.
>
> Oh, argh. patch 2/5 was too big, so it didn't make it into the mailing list archive I was using to
> try to review this series. Please break it up into smaller pieces for next time!
Okay:)
Thanks!
Powered by blists - more mailing lists