Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 3 Jul 2006 16:42:02 +0200 (MEST) | From | Jan Engelhardt <> | Subject | Re: [patch 7/8] inode-diet: Use a union for i_blocks and i_size, i_rdev and i_devices |
| |
>> > The i_blocks and i_size fields are only used for regular files. So we >> > move them into the union, along with i_rdev and i_devices, which are >> > only used by block or character devices. >> >> Can we please make this a named instead of unnamed union so everyone still >> using the fields will trip up? To reduce the impact a few more imajor/iminor >> conversions might be needed were direct references to i_rdev crept back in. > >I did that originally but when I sent out my first version of patches >for review, other developers asked me to use an unnamed union --- >since otherwise the patch would be much, much larger (lots of changes >would need to be made) and that makes it much harder to merge into >either Andrew's or Linus's tree. > >What do other people think? I can go either way on this one.
I prefer unnamed. A dislike it when unions make initializers longer than necessary, even if it's short.
inode->u.file.a.i_blksize... vs inode->i_blksize
Jan Engelhardt -- - 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/
| |