From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list xfs); Tue, 16 Sep 2008 17:56:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda3.sgi.com [192.48.176.15]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11/SuSE Linux 0.7) with ESMTP id m8H0uYw6022013 for ; Tue, 16 Sep 2008 17:56:35 -0700 Received: from ipmail05.adl2.internode.on.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id 1BA4A12BD216 for ; Tue, 16 Sep 2008 17:58:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ipmail05.adl2.internode.on.net (ipmail05.adl2.internode.on.net [203.16.214.145]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id f3nstGaTypPwGX0I for ; Tue, 16 Sep 2008 17:58:06 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 10:57:50 +1000 From: Dave Chinner Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/6] cleanup btree record / key / ptr addressing macros Message-ID: <20080917005750.GG5811@disturbed> References: <20080915004653.GE12213@lst.de> <20080916055333.GW5811@disturbed> <20080916174136.GC26187@lst.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080916174136.GC26187@lst.de> Sender: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: xfs To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 07:41:36PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 03:53:33PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 02:46:53AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > +#define XFS_BMAP_BROOT_PTR_ADDR(mp, bb, i, sz) \ > > > + XFS_BMBT_PTR_ADDR(mp, bb, i, xfs_bmbt_maxrecs(mp, sz, 0)) > > > > Ah, that explains why that macro didn't change. Why keep just this > > one? > > It seems borderline useful, but if you care strongly I can kill it. I don't really mind - i was just curious as to why that particular macro didn't get changed like all the others. Seems reasonable to leave it there.... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com