Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 13 Jan 2006 11:51:28 -0800 (PST) | From | Linus Torvalds <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 2.6.15] ufs cleanup |
| |
On Fri, 13 Jan 2006, Evgeniy wrote: > +static inline struct ufs_super_block_second * > +ubh_get_usb_second(struct ufs_sb_private_info *uspi) > +{ > + char *res=uspi->s_ubh.bh[UFS_SECTOR_SIZE >> uspi->s_fshift]->b_data + > + (UFS_SECTOR_SIZE & ~uspi->s_fmask); > + return (struct ufs_super_block_second *)res; > +}
I was thinking of something even more abstracted:
static inline void *get_usb_offset(struct ufs_sb_private_info *uspi, unsigned int offset) { unsigned int index;
index = offset >> uspi->s_fshift; offset &= ~uspi->s_fmask; return uspi->s_ubh.bh[index]->b_data + offset; }
and then just doing
#define ubs_get_usb_first(uspi) \ ((struct ufs_super_block_first *)get_usb_offset(uspi, 0))
#define ubh_get_usb_second(uspi) \ ((struct ufs_super_block_second *)get_usb_offset(uspi, UFS_SECTOR_SIZE))
#define ubh_get_usb_third(uspi) \ ((struct ufs_super_block_third *)get_usb_offset(uspi, 2*UFS_SECTOR_SIZE))
or something similar. Which seems a hell of a lot more readable to me, and assuming it passes testing (ie I didn't screw up), I think it's more likely to stay correct in the future and just generally be maintainable.
Hmm?
Linus - 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/
| |