> > NAK. This is a sparse bug, fix sparse. > > Yes, fair enough, but that's not all the patch is about. > > 1) it's using a max_t and min_t to force the comparisons as shorts, why > not just make it a static inline? Because max_t and min_t also force the comparsion types > 2) the static inline is a little clearer about the intent here. Why ? > 3) the sparse warnings are entirely secondary (and technically correct > when the macros expand, __x is shadowed) In a controlled manner. I guess you could make min and max use __x and __y > 4) I may be mistaken, but I thought then when something can be written > as a static inline instead of a macro it was preferred. At least I've > seen akpm say so, but I'll let him speak for himself (added to CC:) gcc still sometimes seems to optimise macros better than inlines. Alan - 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
