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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jan 07 2002 - 21:00:20 EST