> Quite frankly, I don't quite understand where you get those enormous balls > you have, that you can then talk about how ugly it is to just add a "= 0" > that shuts up a compiler warning. That's the _least_ ugly part of the > whole damn function! The clanking when I walk annoys people in the office too... But you're right. It is stupid of me to make such a big deal about this. My excuse is that I've seen those warnings so many times and actually given them more thought than they deserve, and I really felt that Jeff's change makes the admittedly already ugly code a tiny little bit worse. > Anyway, here's a totally untested cleanup that compiles but probably > doesn't work, because I didn't check that I did the right thing with all > the pointer arithmetic (ie when I change "wqe" to a real structure pointer > instead of just a "void *", maybe I left some pointer arithmetic around > that expected it to work as a byte pointer, but now really works on the > whole structure size instead). Given that you took the time to do this, I'll get the patch into a working state and apply it. And maybe split it into reviewable chunks while I'm at it ;) Thanks, Roland - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ide" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
