On Wed 11-04-18 13:22:51, Rasmus Villemoes wrote: > On 2018-04-11 13:03, Jan Kara wrote: > > > OK, I understand now. So basically ripping out all the smarts (except for > > buffer space handling) out of reiserfs_warning() and putting them into the > > caller. That certainly works although it's quite some work - 175 warnings to > > go through. > > Yes, but it's mostly automated, with gcc providing sanity checks of the > end result, and patch 4/4 in this series alone is > > fs/reiserfs/prints.c | 158 > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------- > 1 file changed, 128 insertions(+), 30 deletions(-) > > adding lots of fragile and complex code that we don't even know actually > fixes the problems... I certainly know which I'd prefer. Going through all reiserfs_warning() stuff and converting it is certainly better than current patch 4/4. I agree with that. It is just that that's enough work on practically dead code that it makes me wish for a better alternative :). Honza -- Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxxx> SUSE Labs, CR -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe reiserfs-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
