Andreas Dilger wrote:
quoted text > This isn't the first time that we've had problems like this, and it
> won't be the last time unless there is a better API for checking
> these flags.
*nod*
quoted text > I've long thought about having something like:
Same thing crossed my mind; seems like a very good idea.
quoted text > #define EXT4_CHECK_COMPAT(sb, flag) ((super)->s_feature_compat & \
> EXT4_FEATURE_COMPAT_ ## flag)
> #define EXT4_CHECK_RO_COMPAT(sb, flag) ((super)->s_feature_ro_compat & \
> EXT4_FEATURE_RO_COMPAT_ ## flag)
> #define EXT4_CHECK_INCOMPAT(sb, flag) ((super)->s_feature_incompat & \
> EXT4_FEATURE_INCOMPAT_ ## flag)
> #define EXT4_SET_COMPAT(sb, flag) do { (super)->s_feature_compat |= \
> EXT4_FEATURE_COMPAT_ ## flag; } while(0)
> #define EXT4_SET_RO_COMPAT(sb, flag) do { (super)->s_feature_ro_compat |= \
> EXT4_FEATURE_RO_COMPAT_ ##flag;} while(0)
> #define EXT4_SET_INCOMPAT(sb, flag) do { (super)->s_feature_incompat |= \
> EXT4_FEATURE_INCOMPAT_ ## flag;} while(0)
>
> This will produce a compile error if the flag name and the macro name
> don't match. Unfortunately, for e2fsprogs we will need 3 sets of such
> macros because the feature flags are named EXT2_*, EXT3_*, and
> EXT4_*, depending on when they were added. For the kernel code that
> wouldn't be needed.
Time to name them consistently in e2fsprogs, then, I think?
-Eric
quoted text > Cheers, Andreas
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to
majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at
http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
