On Mon, 13 Aug 2007, Satyam Sharma wrote:
> Hi David, > > > On Fri, 10 Aug 2007, David Miller wrote: > [...] > > 1) The reiserfs definition is better, it is _type_ based. > > Please use (~(__u16)0) and (~(__u32)0), respectively. > > Hmm, in that case ((__u16)0xffff) and ((__u32)0xffffffff) are probably > better and clearer -- as that's what u16_max and u32_max are, after all. > > We do require the (~0) thing for the max int/uint/long types, but that's > because those are types where the number-of-bits is not known when writing > the macro definition -- but that's not case with u16 and u32, so the > 0xff... variants are clearer, IMHO. > > > > 2) The reiserfs definition is going to define an equivalent > > value, so just adding an #undef and still letting reiserfs > > override is wrong. Why put a common define in kernel.h > > if other headers still keep their own crufty copy too? > > Because removing the (re-)definition of U32_MAX from in there in > reiserfs_fs.h will break builds of all userspace users of U32_MAX and > max_reiserfs_offset(), would it not? I haven't looked at any reiserfs > userspace tools source code, so possibly none such (that use > max_reiserfs_offset) exist, but I thought it better to be safe. > I'll have a look at the reiserfs-utils package, just in case. I checked with latest reiserfsprogs available from namesys.com and also reiserfs-utils package available from Fedora, and it appears there are no users of either U32_MAX or max_reiserfs_offset() in any userspace reiserfs tools, so we're safe in removing the U32_MAX from include/linux/reiserfs_fs.h. Thanks, Satyam - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
