On Thu, 20 Sep 2007, Ken'ichi Ohmichi wrote:
>
> [PATCH 6/4] [-mm patch] use the existing offsetof().
> It is better that offsetof() is used for VMCOREINFO_OFFSET().
> This idea is Joe Perches's.
>
>
>
> Thanks
> Ken'ichi Ohmichi
>
> ---
> Signed-off-by: Joe Perches <[email protected]>
Same deal here ...
> Signed-off-by: Ken'ichi Ohmichi <[email protected]>
> ---
> diff -rpuN a/include/linux/kexec.h b/include/linux/kexec.h
> --- a/include/linux/kexec.h 2007-09-18 15:23:22.000000000 +0900
> +++ b/include/linux/kexec.h 2007-09-18 15:27:29.000000000 +0900
> @@ -137,7 +137,7 @@ unsigned long paddr_vmcoreinfo_note(void
> (unsigned long)sizeof(struct name))
> #define VMCOREINFO_OFFSET(name, field) \
> vmcoreinfo_append_str("OFFSET(%s.%s)=%lu\n", #name, #field, \
> - (unsigned long)&(((struct name *)0)->field))
> + (unsigned long)offsetof(struct name, field))
> #define VMCOREINFO_LENGTH(name, value) \
> vmcoreinfo_append_str("LENGTH(%s)=%lu\n", #name, (unsigned long)value)
... and here. Use %zu and lose the casts.
BTW I don't think these macros are such a big win in readability or
code clarity anyway. And I noticed that there are still some open
calls to vmcoreinfo_append_str() in kexec.c (such as for the OS_RELEASE
case) which you haven't macro-ized ... we end up having code that looks
like:
vmcoreinfo_append_str(...);
...
...
VMCOREINFO_OFFSET(...);
...
and it's not even obvious (unless you follow on to the definition of the
later macro) that the above two are *exactly* the same. So you could also
consider just losing the macros altogether.
Satyam
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
