Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <1544470917-6443-1-git-send-email-carmeli.tamir@gmail.com>
 <1544470917-6443-3-git-send-email-carmeli.tamir@gmail.com>
 <906167f7ca975d437ff9868333d8bf1e86b934a7.camel@perches.com> <87sgz0dci0.fsf@mail.parknet.co.jp>
In-Reply-To: <87sgz0dci0.fsf@mail.parknet.co.jp>
From:   Tamir Carmeli <carmeli.tamir@gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 14 Dec 2018 10:14:35 +0200
Message-ID: <CAKxm1-G7WpJV0_3=TLyY_JMN=Wz1GkM2w6buc6ez+WUZ_tyEhg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] fat: New macros to determine the FAT variant (32, 16
 or 12)
To:     hirofumi@mail.parknet.co.jp
Cc:     joe@perches.com, jthumshirn@suse.de,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>,
        akpm@linux-foundation.org, axboe@kernel.dk,
        martin.petersen@oracle.com, bvanassche@acm.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Thanks a lot for the comments, I'll work on V2 to fix them.
I just want to make sure, is there a reason why I shouldn't delete
FAT_FIRST_ENT, as Joe Perches commented?

On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 5:16 AM OGAWA Hirofumi
<hirofumi@mail.parknet.co.jp> wrote:
>
> Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> writes:
>
> >>
> >> -#define FAT_FIRST_ENT(s, x)     ((MSDOS_SB(s)->fat_bits == 32 ? 0x0FFFFF00 : \
> >> -    MSDOS_SB(s)->fat_bits == 16 ? 0xFF00 : 0xF00) | (x))
> >> +#define IS_FAT12(sbi) (sbi->fat_bits == 12)
> >> +#define IS_FAT16(sbi) (sbi->fat_bits == 16)
> >> +#define IS_FAT32(sbi) (sbi->fat_bits == 32)
> >
> > sbi should be parenthesized or perhaps better these should be
> > static inline bool functions
>
> Right, rather this is the bug (not hit yet though) that should be fixed.
>
> Thanks.
> --
> OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@mail.parknet.co.jp>