On Thu, Jul 19 2007, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Jul 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 11:02:07 +0200 (CEST) Geert Uytterhoeven <Geert.Uytterhoeven@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, 18 Jul 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > > > +struct ps3rom_private {
> > > > > + struct ps3_storage_device *dev;
> > > > > + struct scsi_cmnd *curr_cmd;
> > > > > +};
> > > > > +#define ps3rom_priv(dev) ((dev)->sbd.core.driver_data)
> > > > > +
> > > >
> > > > Someone should invent a keyboard which delivers an electric shock when the
> > > > operator types "#define". In the meanwhile, I get to do the honours.
> > > >
> > > > Please don't implement in a macro anything which can be implemented in C.
> > >
> > > All I needed was a shorthand to access driver_data, for both read and write
> > > access (you cannot do the latter with C, unless you decouple read and write).
> >
> > Oh dear.
> >
> > ps3rom_priv(dev) = host;
> >
> > that's 'orrid. We have an identifier pretending to be a function, only we
> > go and treat it as an lvalue.
> >
> > I mean, C code should look like C code, and the above just doesn't.
> >
> > Sigh.
>
> Do you prefer
>
> static inline struct ps3rom_private *ps3rom_priv_get(struct ps3_storage_device
> *dev)
> {
> return dev->sbd.core.driver_data;
> }
>
> static inline void ps3rom_priv_set(struct ps3_storage_device *dev,
> struct ps3rom_private *priv)
> {
> dev->sbd.core.driver_data = priv;
> }
how about just killing them? it makes the code harder to read, what is
the point of abstracting something like that out?
--
Jens Axboe
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
