Jose R. Santos wrote:
> 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.
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
--
------------- Laurent.Vivier@xxxxxxxx --------------
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is
indistinguishable from magic." - Arthur C. Clarke
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
