Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2004 01:08:01 +0200
From: Andries Brouwer <aebr@win.tue.nl>
To: Oliver Neukum <oliver@neukum.org>
Cc: Andries Brouwer <aebr@win.tue.nl>, Pete Zaitcev <zaitcev@redhat.com>,
       greg@kroah.com, arjanv@redhat.com, jgarzik@redhat.com,
       tburke@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
       stern@rowland.harvard.edu, mdharm-usb@one-eyed-alien.net,
       david-b@pacbell.net
Subject: Re: drivers/block/ub.c
Message-ID: <20040626230801.GF5526@pclin040.win.tue.nl>
References: <20040626130645.55be13ce@lembas.zaitcev.lan> <200406262235.15688.oliver@neukum.org> <20040626225435.GE5526@pclin040.win.tue.nl> <200406270059.04436.oliver@neukum.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <200406270059.04436.oliver@neukum.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 913
Lines: 30

On Sun, Jun 27, 2004 at 12:59:04AM +0200, Oliver Neukum wrote:

>>>>+	cmd->cdb[2] = block >> 24;
>>>>+	cmd->cdb[3] = block >> 16;
>>>>+	cmd->cdb[4] = block >> 8;
>>>>+	cmd->cdb[5] = block;
>>> 
>>> we have macros for that.
>>> 
>>>>+	cmd->cdb[7] = nblks >> 8;
>>>>+	cmd->cdb[8] = nblks;
>>> 
>>> dito
>>
>> Yes, we have macros. Using those macros would not at all be an improvement here.
> 
> How do you arrive at that unusual conclusion?

The above writes clearly and simply what one wants.
I expect that you propose writing

	*((u32 *)(cmd->cdb + 2)) = cpu_to_be32(block);

or some similar unspeakable ugliness.
If you had something else in mind, please reveal what.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/