Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 20 Sep 2007 17:58:52 +0530 (IST) | From | Satyam Sharma <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 6/4] [-mm patch] use the existing offsetof(). |
| |
On Thu, 20 Sep 2007, Ken'ichi Ohmichi wrote: > > [PATCH 6/4] [-mm patch] use the existing offsetof(). > It is better that offsetof() is used for VMCOREINFO_OFFSET(). > This idea is Joe Perches's. > > > > Thanks > Ken'ichi Ohmichi > > --- > Signed-off-by: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
Same deal here ...
> Signed-off-by: Ken'ichi Ohmichi <oomichi@mxs.nes.nec.co.jp> > --- > diff -rpuN a/include/linux/kexec.h b/include/linux/kexec.h > --- a/include/linux/kexec.h 2007-09-18 15:23:22.000000000 +0900 > +++ b/include/linux/kexec.h 2007-09-18 15:27:29.000000000 +0900 > @@ -137,7 +137,7 @@ unsigned long paddr_vmcoreinfo_note(void > (unsigned long)sizeof(struct name)) > #define VMCOREINFO_OFFSET(name, field) \ > vmcoreinfo_append_str("OFFSET(%s.%s)=%lu\n", #name, #field, \ > - (unsigned long)&(((struct name *)0)->field)) > + (unsigned long)offsetof(struct name, field)) > #define VMCOREINFO_LENGTH(name, value) \ > vmcoreinfo_append_str("LENGTH(%s)=%lu\n", #name, (unsigned long)value)
... and here. Use %zu and lose the casts.
BTW I don't think these macros are such a big win in readability or code clarity anyway. And I noticed that there are still some open calls to vmcoreinfo_append_str() in kexec.c (such as for the OS_RELEASE case) which you haven't macro-ized ... we end up having code that looks like:
vmcoreinfo_append_str(...); ...
... VMCOREINFO_OFFSET(...); ...
and it's not even obvious (unless you follow on to the definition of the later macro) that the above two are *exactly* the same. So you could also consider just losing the macros altogether.
Satyam - 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/
| |