From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2015 17:36:05 +0000
Subject: [Cluster-devel] [RFC PATCH 1/5] new helper: iov_iter_rw()
In-Reply-To: <34dc78b262546e9343e0ed872232a97f5eaa5f15.1426502566.git.osandov@osandov.com>
References: <cover.1426502566.git.osandov@osandov.com>
	<34dc78b262546e9343e0ed872232a97f5eaa5f15.1426502566.git.osandov@osandov.com>
Message-ID: <20150316173605.GX29656@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
List-Id: <cluster-devel.redhat.com>
To: cluster-devel.redhat.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 04:33:49AM -0700, Omar Sandoval wrote:
> Get either READ or WRITE out of iter->type.

Umm...  

> + * Get one of READ or WRITE out of iter->type without any other flags OR'd in
> + * with it.
> + */
> +static inline int iov_iter_rw(const struct iov_iter *i)
> +{
> +	return i->type & RW_MASK;
> +}

TBH, I would turn that into a macro.  Reason: indirect includes.

How about

#define iov_iter_rw(i) ((0 ? (struct iov_iter *)0 : (i))->type & RW_MASK)

Should do you all the type safety of inline function and avoids the need
to include fs.h in uio.h; _users_ of iov_iter_rw() obviously still need
fs.h, but such places always used to...