From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S964990AbWCTVql (ORCPT ); Mon, 20 Mar 2006 16:46:41 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S964995AbWCTVql (ORCPT ); Mon, 20 Mar 2006 16:46:41 -0500 Received: from omx2-ext.sgi.com ([192.48.171.19]:29865 "EHLO omx2.sgi.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S964990AbWCTVqk (ORCPT ); Mon, 20 Mar 2006 16:46:40 -0500 Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 08:46:19 +1100 From: Nathan Scott To: Jan Engelhardt Cc: linux-xfs@oss.sgi.com, Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: Parenthesize macros in xfs Message-ID: <20060321084619.E653275@wobbly.melbourne.sgi.com> References: <20060321082327.B653275@wobbly.melbourne.sgi.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: ; from jengelh@linux01.gwdg.de on Mon, Mar 20, 2006 at 10:39:45PM +0100 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Jan, On Mon, Mar 20, 2006 at 10:39:45PM +0100, Jan Engelhardt wrote: > >> while browsing through the xfs/linux source, I noticed that many macros do > >> not do proper bracing. I have started to cook up a patch, but would like > >> feedback first before I continue for nothing. > >> It goes like this: > >> ... > > > >That looks fine. Please be sure to work on the -mm tree or on > >CVS on oss.sgi.com, so as to reduce your level of patch conflict. > > > > Hm, would not it even be better to make them 'static inline' functions? Probably, I guess I'd want to see how invasive the patch becomes...? I really dislike those _ACL macros (around that example you gave, that could do with a cleanup all of its own - switching to xfs_acl_ maybe). Also watch for macros that modify their parameters, I got burned by doing an inline conversion a few releases back on just such a beast.. cheers. -- Nathan