On Mon, Dec 17, 2007 at 05:50:17PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote: > > fix warnings: > > fs/udf/super.c:1320:24: warning: symbol 'bh' shadows an earlier one > > fs/udf/super.c:1240:21: originally declared here > > fs/udf/super.c:1583:4: warning: symbol 'i' shadows an earlier one > > fs/udf/super.c:1418:6: originally declared here > > fs/udf/super.c:1585:4: warning: symbol 'i' shadows an earlier one > > fs/udf/super.c:1418:6: originally declared here > > fs/udf/super.c:1658:4: warning: symbol 'i' shadows an earlier one > > fs/udf/super.c:1648:6: originally declared here > > fs/udf/super.c:1660:4: warning: symbol 'i' shadows an earlier one > > fs/udf/super.c:1648:6: originally declared here > > fs/udf/super.c:450:6: warning: symbol 'udf_write_super' was not declared. > > Should it be static? > > > > Signed-off-by: Marcin Slusarz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > CC: Ben Fennema <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Thanks for the patch. The 'bh' change is fine. The problems with 'i' > should be solved differently I think. Those functions UDF_SB_FREE, > UDF_SB_ALLOC_PARTMAPS should be functions and not macros. Please convert > those to either inline functions if they are small or to regular > functions if they are larger. It won't be completely trivial because of > the hackery e.g. in UDF_SB_ALLOC_BITMAP. It gets an argument meaning on > which struct member something should be performed. But for example in > the UDF_SB_ALLOC_BITMAP case you can simply make the function return the > pointer to allocated and initialized space and the caller would assign > it to a proper element of the superblock. Ok, I'll try to do it.
> This would help the overall > code quality of UDF (which is sadly quite poor). If you have other suggestions how to clean up this code, let me know. I'll see what I can do with them ;) Marcin -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
