Elias Oltmanns wrote:
> Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> Elias Oltmanns wrote:
>>>> - ata_port_for_each_link(link, ap) {
>>>> - ata_link_for_each_dev(dev, link)
>>>> + ata_for_each_link(link, ap, EDGE) {
>>>> + ata_for_each_dev(dev, link, ALL)
>>> Where did these short forms (EDGE, ALL) spring from? Does this code even
>>> compile?
>> +#define ata_for_each_link(link, ap, mode) \
>> + for ((link) = ata_link_next(NULL, (ap), ATA_LITER_##mode); (link); \
>> + (link) = ata_link_next((link), (ap), ATA_LITER_##mode))
>> +
>> +#define ata_for_each_dev(dev, link, mode) \
>> + for ((dev) = ata_dev_next(NULL, (link), ATA_DITER_##mode); (dev); \
>> + (dev) = ata_dev_next((dev), (link), ATA_DITER_##mode))
>
> Sorry, I should have been more explicit. I was referring to EDGE and ALL
> as opposed to ATA_LITER_EDGE and ATA_DITER_ALL. Unless I've missed
> something, the former aren't defined anywhere in your patch.
I seriously can't be more explicit. Please take a shower and read my
reply again, especially, the "ATA_[LD]ITER_##mode" part. :-)
--
tejun
--
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
