Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > 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. OK, sure. Thanks!
