Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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. :-)
Oh dear, I really need to drop that idea that a macro does what I think
it does. Sorry for the noise.
Regards,
Elias
--
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
