Quoting Eric W. Biederman (ebiederm@xxxxxxxxxxxx):
> Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> >> index 30f5a44..030a39d 100644
> >> --- a/fs/sysfs/sysfs.h
> >> +++ b/fs/sysfs/sysfs.h
> >> @@ -114,6 +114,9 @@ struct sysfs_addrm_cxt {
> >> /*
> >> * mount.c
> >> */
> >> +struct sysfs_super_info {
> >> +};
> >> +#define sysfs_info(SB) ((struct sysfs_super_info *)(SB->s_fs_info))
> >
> > Another nit picking. It would be better to wrap SB in the macro
> > definition. Also, wouldn't an inline function be better?
>
> Good spotting. That doesn't bite today but it will certainly bite
> someday if it isn't fixed.
>
> I wonder how that has slipped through the review all of this time.
(let me demonstrate how: )
WTH are you talking about? Unless you mean doing (SB) inside
the definition?
I actually was going to suggest dropping the #define as it obscures
the code, but I figured it would get more complicated later.
-serge
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
