Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 04:57:55 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 04:57:45 -0500 Received: from smtp4.vol.cz ([195.250.128.43]:22788 "EHLO majordomo.vol.cz") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 04:57:33 -0500 Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2002 10:26:35 +0000 From: Pavel Machek To: Daniel Phillips , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, ext2-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo , Alexander Viro , Marcelo Tosatti , Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: [Ext2-devel] [RFC] [PATCH] Clean up fs.h union for ext2 Message-ID: <20020102102635.A53@toy.ucw.cz> In-Reply-To: <20011227111415.D12868@lynx.no> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i In-Reply-To: <20011227111415.D12868@lynx.no>; from adilger@turbolabs.com on Thu, Dec 27, 2001 at 11:14:15AM -0700 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi! > Why not just declare ext2_i like the following? It _should_ work: > > static inline struct ext2_inode_info *ext2_i(const struct inode *inode) > { > return &(inode->u.ext2_inode_info); > } > > > Minor nit: this is already done for the ext3 code, but it looks like: > > #define EXT3_I (&((inode)->u.ext3_i)) > > We already have the EXT3_SB, so I thought I would be consistent with it: > > #define EXT3_SB (&((sb)->u.ext3_sb)) > > Do people like the inline version better? Either way, I would like to make > the ext2 and ext3 codes more similar, rather than less. Maybe 2.5 is time to merge ext2 and ext3? Pavel -- Philips Velo 1: 1"x4"x8", 300gram, 60, 12MB, 40bogomips, linux, mutt, details at http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/velo/index.html. - 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/