On 8/18/05, Erik Mouw <J.A.K.Mouw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Aug 18, 2005 at 12:46:29PM +0200, jerome lacoste wrote: > > [Exerpt from lkml] > > > > On 8/18/05, Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Jesper Juhl <jesper.juhl@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > --- linux-2.6.13-rc6-git9-orig/fs/xfs/linux-2.6/sema.h 2005-06-17 21:48:29.000000000 +0200 > > > > +++ linux-2.6.13-rc6-git9/fs/xfs/linux-2.6/sema.h 2005-08-18 00:46:41.000000000 +0200 > > > > @@ -43,9 +43,9 @@ > > > > > > > > typedef struct semaphore sema_t; > > > > > > > > -#define init_sema(sp, val, c, d) sema_init(sp, val) > > > > -#define initsema(sp, val) sema_init(sp, val) > > > > -#define initnsema(sp, val, name) sema_init(sp, val) > > > > +#define init_sema(sp, val, c, d) init_sema(sp, val) > > > > +#define initsema(sp, val) init_sema(sp, val) > > > > +#define initnsema(sp, val, name) init_sema(sp, val) > > > > > > Well that's pretty nonsensical. I'll drop the patches - please don't send > > > things which haven't been compiled. > > > > If you can enlighten me as to what Andrew found nonsensical here, I > > would be happy. > > It defines init_sema() twice. First as sema_init(sp, val), next time as > init_sema(sp, val). Gcc doesn't like that. Same for initsema() and > initnsema(). Aren't the lines with sema_init() removed? I must be tired. I still don't see... Sorry to bother. > Plus that it looks like useless use of wrapper macros to me. Yes. But those useless wrapper macros were there before the patch. Right? That could be taken care by a different patch. Jerome -- Kernelnewbies: Help each other learn about the Linux kernel. Archive: http://mail.nl.linux.org/kernelnewbies/ FAQ: http://kernelnewbies.org/faq/
