On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 16:03:44 +0200 Laurent Vivier <Laurent.Vivier@xxxxxxxx> 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. > Regards > Laurent -JRS - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
