![]() | |||||||||||
Messages in this thread Complete thread (EXPERIMENTAL) |
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. | ||||||||||
![]() | |||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-03-22 12:15 [W:0.475 / U:0.010 seconds] ©2003-2005 Jasper Spaans | |||||||||||