On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 04:58:07AM +0000, Sam James wrote: > >> - we don't really need this patch all > >> - but cleaning up xfs_assert_largefile to just use static_assert would > >> probably be nice to have anyway > > > > Thanks, I agree, but I think static_assert is C11 (and then it gets a > > nicer name in C23). If it's still fine for us, I can then use it. > > > > Does it change your thinking at all or should I send a v4 with it > > included? > > ping. I don't mind doing a followup, but I'd love to get this in given > there's a bunch of other projects still to handle with this sort of > problem. Well, we certainly should drop this patch from the series. Adding a cleanup to switch the existing odd way of asserting the size to static_assert would be nice, but I don't think is required.
