Re: [PATCH] removes array_size duplicates

2007-10-01 Thread Robert P. J. Day
On Mon, 1 Oct 2007, Robert P. J. Day wrote: ... > among other things, one of the creepy issues here is the definition in > include/linux/netfilter/xt_sctp.h of the macro: > > ... > #define SCTP_CHUNKMAP_COPY(destmap, srcmap) \ > do {

Re: [PATCH] removes array_size duplicates

2007-10-01 Thread Robert P. J. Day
On Mon, 1 Oct 2007, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 00:51:13 +0200 roel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > This patch removes some ARRAY_SIZE macro duplicates. There is also one in > > arch/um/include/user.h, which isn't fixed here because comments in that file > > explicitly state a

Re: [PATCH] removes array_size duplicates

2007-10-01 Thread Andrew Morton
On Mon, 1 Oct 2007 11:33:01 +0200 (CEST) Geert Uytterhoeven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, 1 Oct 2007, Andrew Morton wrote: > > On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 00:51:13 +0200 roel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > This patch removes some ARRAY_SIZE macro duplicates. There is also one in > > >

Re: [PATCH] removes array_size duplicates

2007-10-01 Thread Geert Uytterhoeven
On Mon, 1 Oct 2007, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 00:51:13 +0200 roel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > This patch removes some ARRAY_SIZE macro duplicates. There is also one in > > arch/um/include/user.h, which isn't fixed here because comments in that file > > explicitly state a

Re: [PATCH] removes array_size duplicates

2007-10-01 Thread Andrew Morton
On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 00:51:13 +0200 roel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This patch removes some ARRAY_SIZE macro duplicates. There is also one in > arch/um/include/user.h, which isn't fixed here because comments in that file > explicitly state a preference for the 'less fancy' version. If that's the

Re: [PATCH] removes array_size duplicates

2007-10-01 Thread Andrew Morton
On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 00:51:13 +0200 roel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This patch removes some ARRAY_SIZE macro duplicates. There is also one in arch/um/include/user.h, which isn't fixed here because comments in that file explicitly state a preference for the 'less fancy' version. If that's the

Re: [PATCH] removes array_size duplicates

2007-10-01 Thread Geert Uytterhoeven
On Mon, 1 Oct 2007, Andrew Morton wrote: On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 00:51:13 +0200 roel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This patch removes some ARRAY_SIZE macro duplicates. There is also one in arch/um/include/user.h, which isn't fixed here because comments in that file explicitly state a preference for

Re: [PATCH] removes array_size duplicates

2007-10-01 Thread Andrew Morton
On Mon, 1 Oct 2007 11:33:01 +0200 (CEST) Geert Uytterhoeven [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, 1 Oct 2007, Andrew Morton wrote: On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 00:51:13 +0200 roel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This patch removes some ARRAY_SIZE macro duplicates. There is also one in

Re: [PATCH] removes array_size duplicates

2007-10-01 Thread Robert P. J. Day
On Mon, 1 Oct 2007, Andrew Morton wrote: On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 00:51:13 +0200 roel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This patch removes some ARRAY_SIZE macro duplicates. There is also one in arch/um/include/user.h, which isn't fixed here because comments in that file explicitly state a preference

Re: [PATCH] removes array_size duplicates

2007-10-01 Thread Robert P. J. Day
On Mon, 1 Oct 2007, Robert P. J. Day wrote: ... among other things, one of the creepy issues here is the definition in include/linux/netfilter/xt_sctp.h of the macro: ... #define SCTP_CHUNKMAP_COPY(destmap, srcmap) \ do {

[PATCH] removes array_size duplicates

2007-09-27 Thread roel
This patch removes some ARRAY_SIZE macro duplicates. There is also one in arch/um/include/user.h, which isn't fixed here because comments in that file explicitly state a preference for the 'less fancy' version. If that's the case as well for any of the other replacements please comment.

[PATCH] removes array_size duplicates

2007-09-27 Thread roel
This patch removes some ARRAY_SIZE macro duplicates. There is also one in arch/um/include/user.h, which isn't fixed here because comments in that file explicitly state a preference for the 'less fancy' version. If that's the case as well for any of the other replacements please comment.