From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay1.corp.sgi.com [137.38.102.111]) by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE7417F50 for ; Sun, 11 Jan 2015 17:53:52 -0600 (CST) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda3.sgi.com [192.48.176.15]) by relay1.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD53D8F8035 for ; Sun, 11 Jan 2015 15:53:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-yh0-f45.google.com (mail-yh0-f45.google.com [209.85.213.45]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id EqDpHDS6lCanbAe1 (version=TLSv1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Sun, 11 Jan 2015 15:53:48 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-yh0-f45.google.com with SMTP id f10so8376915yha.4 for ; Sun, 11 Jan 2015 15:53:48 -0800 (PST) Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2015 18:53:44 -0500 From: Tom Haynes Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/18] nfsd: factor out a helper to decode nfstime4 values Message-ID: <20150111235344.GA11746@slacker.internal.excfb.com> References: <1420561721-9150-1-git-send-email-hch@lst.de> <1420561721-9150-4-git-send-email-hch@lst.de> <20150109230202.GB107259@kitty> <20150111114242.GA11939@lst.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150111114242.GA11939@lst.de> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: "J. Bruce Fields" , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, Jeff Layton , xfs@oss.sgi.com On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 12:42:42PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Fri, Jan 09, 2015 at 03:02:02PM -0800, Tom Haynes wrote: > > > > > - READ_BUF(12); > > > len += 12; > > > > I think this code makes it clear that the magic number 12 is the > > same on both lines. With the change, that gets lost. > > > > Do I think that the 12 will ever change? No. > > > > Do I think this becomes more "magic"? Yes. > > Sure. but the whole counting the number to be decoded in setattr > is magic to start with. Agreed. > I guess we could replace it with some magic > pointer arithmetic on argp->p, but is that really worth it? Which is why I asked the leading questions. I see both sides, but ultimately it is a nit considering the rest of the abuse. I'm fine with you deciding it is still magic overall. > Should > be a separate patch for sure. _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs