Hi David,
On Fri, 10 Aug 2007, David Miller wrote: > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 14:12:10 -0700 > > > From: Satyam Sharma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > ... in kernel.h and clean up home-grown macros elsewhere in the tree. > > > > Leave out the one in reiserfs_fs.h as it is in the userspace-visible part > > of that header. Still, #undef the (equivalent) kernel version there to > > avoid seeing "redefined, previous definition was here" gcc warnings. > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]: fix U16_MAX, U32_MAX defns] > > Signed-off-by: Satyam Sharma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > I won't apply this one, for two reasons: > > 1) The reiserfs definition is better, it is _type_ based. > Please use (~(__u16)0) and (~(__u32)0), respectively. Hmm, in that case ((__u16)0xffff) and ((__u32)0xffffffff) are probably better and clearer -- as that's what u16_max and u32_max are, after all. We do require the (~0) thing for the max int/uint/long types, but that's because those are types where the number-of-bits is not known when writing the macro definition -- but that's not case with u16 and u32, so the 0xff... variants are clearer, IMHO. > 2) The reiserfs definition is going to define an equivalent > value, so just adding an #undef and still letting reiserfs > override is wrong. Why put a common define in kernel.h > if other headers still keep their own crufty copy too? Because removing the (re-)definition of U32_MAX from in there in reiserfs_fs.h will break builds of all userspace users of U32_MAX and max_reiserfs_offset(), would it not? I haven't looked at any reiserfs userspace tools source code, so possibly none such (that use max_reiserfs_offset) exist, but I thought it better to be safe. I'll have a look at the reiserfs-utils package, just in case. Thanks, Satyam - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
