From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 23 Aug 2001 15:18:15 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 23 Aug 2001 15:18:08 -0400 Received: from lightning.swansea.linux.org.uk ([194.168.151.1]:51209 "EHLO the-village.bc.nu") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 23 Aug 2001 15:17:57 -0400 Subject: Re: macro conflict To: jimlay@u.washington.edu (J. Imlay) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 20:21:15 +0100 (BST) Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: from "J. Imlay" at Aug 23, 2001 12:03:21 PM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL6] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: From: Alan Cox Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > The problem here with AFS is that it needs the old definition but the old > definition is being over written by the new one... you guys should know > all this. But I am just saying that I really think the new macro > min(type,x,y) should get a new name. like type_min or something. Yep. Thats one of the reasons I've not yet moved to 2.4.9 derived trees for -ac. Its going to require I schedule some time to fix up every single bogus min/max change in Linus tree