Jose R. Santos wrote: > On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 16:03:44 +0200 > Laurent Vivier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Jose R. Santos wrote: >>> Hi Laurent, >>> >>> In this particular case though, the value of s_blocks_count_hi should not be >>> uses on its own. The correct way would be to use ext4_blocks_count() which >>> already does the endian conversion. If you think the code could confuse >>> people as to how to access the data in s_blocks_count_hi, wouldn't hiding it >>> through the use of a macro make more sense than doing an unnecessary endian >>> conversion? >>> >> Yes, I think the code could confuse people, but I don't think defining "Yet >> Another Macro" is a good choice (IMHO). >> >> I think we can resolve this (non-)issue by two ways: >> - using le32_to_cpu() (but I agree it does an unnecessary endian conversion >> on >> big-endian systems) > > I just think that adding extra instructions for the sake of slightly > better code readability is wrong, especially when the value > s_blocks_count_hi should not be used on its own. > >> - put a comment on the line (but are we allowed to put comments in kernel >> source >> code... ;-) ) > > One advantage of a macro here is that we would make the code more > explicit and should be able to eliminate the need for those 4 lines of > comments that this patch adds.
IMHO, you should do as _you_ think it is better... but as Mingming did the first
comment perhaps she can explain what she thought.
Regards,
Laurent
--
------------- [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is
indistinguishable from magic." - Arthur C. Clarke
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
