[Christoph Hellwig - Sun, May 13, 2007 at 10:01:26PM +0100]
| On Fri, May 11, 2007 at 03:09:20PM +0400, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
| > | > | And please get rid of the UDF_I_* macro for everything you touch, just
| > | > | put a
| > | > |
| > | > | struct udf_inode_info *uip = UDF_I(inode);
| > | > |
| > | > | at the beginning of the function and use the fields directly.
| > | > |
| > | >
| > | > Actually to properly remove UDF_I* and UDF_SB_* macroses in the
| > | > whole UDF subsystem - is _lot_ of work. I'm going to make it but
| > | > not now (too busy).
| > |
| > | Doing it completely is a lot of work, yes. I was more thinking of
| > | converting a piece of code once you do major changes. But if you
| > | want to convert all the code as a separate patch I'm more than happy
| > | aswell.
| > |
| >
| > Christoph, my only argue against getting rid of UDF_I_* macro in
| > my patch is UDF coding style, I don't want to damage it. I think
| > we may leave it as is (including my patch). So just review the patch
| > I sent (second version) and Ack it then so Andrew could include it
| > into mm tree. Meantime I'm rewritting the whole UDF subsystem to
| > get rid of that macroses (it will be a long way ;)
|
| The UDF style is horrible and very unlike other kernel code. Given
| that udf has been pretty much unmtained for a while there should be
| nothing in the way of fixing it.
|
| Anyway, the patch is technically correct so you'll get my ACK (not
| that you should need it).
|
Hi Christoph,
you know I've read UDF sources. As I understand all UDF_I_ macroses
could be converted without breaking UDF state but... as you exactly
mentoined it's style is horrible and I'm thinking about rewritting the
whole UDF system. Unfortunelly I'm not _mature_ kernel developer (I'm kernel
newbie) and it could take a long time for this (I think something like
~ 3 month or more ;). Actually I'm ready to spend my free time for
this. So how do you think could it be reasonable?
Cyrill
-
