"Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> 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.
I believe the discuss change was to make the define:
#define sysfs_info(SB) ((struct sysfs_super_info *)((SB)->s_fs_info))
As for dropping the define and using s_fs_info raw. I rather like
a light weight type safe wrapper. Maybe I just think s_fs_info
is an ugly name.
In practice I never call sysfs_info() with any expression that has
a side effect, so it doesn't matter.
Eric
--
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
