From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [112.213.38.117]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 673ACC46CD2 for ; Mon, 22 Jan 2024 21:04:21 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=k20201202 header.b=NpDuKI7y; dkim-atps=neutral Received: from boromir.ozlabs.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4TJjQD07m6z3cRk for ; Tue, 23 Jan 2024 08:04:20 +1100 (AEDT) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=k20201202 header.b=NpDuKI7y; dkim-atps=neutral Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; spf=pass (sender SPF authorized) smtp.mailfrom=kernel.org (client-ip=2604:1380:4641:c500::1; helo=dfw.source.kernel.org; envelope-from=chandanbabu@kernel.org; receiver=lists.ozlabs.org) Received: from dfw.source.kernel.org (dfw.source.kernel.org [IPv6:2604:1380:4641:c500::1]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4TJVVH1kJKz3bnB for ; Mon, 22 Jan 2024 23:52:07 +1100 (AEDT) Received: from smtp.kernel.org (transwarp.subspace.kernel.org [100.75.92.58]) by dfw.source.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67E1B6144D; Mon, 22 Jan 2024 12:52:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 92C93C433C7; Mon, 22 Jan 2024 12:52:02 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1705927923; bh=ek12Fo9+h/4gxnTkeDIXoNZF4jS2nFpEnjFmagMNSVw=; h=References:From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:In-reply-to:From; b=NpDuKI7yKNYuy8wthqSQwDgQQBYVZqJvcFqo3awd88GUCmPF9FN0Fxb4UWuev00Pt 8Ili9LGviWHYYkkR5jr7h1ejQf7khSKkLS/lFZ+2bQ8/gZZDN9N9IiB5k9HF57G51i C8hOjqvIXYakMF9uQbsa2COrnB8cwbbFbMwOZn1X5FWIsXZaYPkh4c5MllkP4zPdhV 07jL4lUzKOZ93chhgwXdAmTKfvVeU8gSUNdvdQ6NJTWGhnV9Onj4155hB8GZmM55VA 7b8go8un2NnBrAQPhWikohnHF906uYAUBQ5yA0k+QVV4nAe+mmyUMYzlc2qlAPh8NU 0nbV1Nz5pAs2A== References: <20240118080326.13137-1-sshegde@linux.ibm.com> <20240118080326.13137-3-sshegde@linux.ibm.com> User-agent: mu4e 1.10.8; emacs 27.1 From: Chandan Babu R To: Shrikanth Hegde Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/3] fs: remove duplicate ifdefs Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2024 18:20:13 +0530 In-reply-to: <20240118080326.13137-3-sshegde@linux.ibm.com> Message-ID: <87cyttedjj.fsf@debian-BULLSEYE-live-builder-AMD64> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 23 Jan 2024 08:03:36 +1100 X-BeenThere: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: linux-ntfs-dev@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, peterz@infradead.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, mingo@kernel.org, anton@tuxera.com Errors-To: linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Sender: "Linuxppc-dev" On Thu, Jan 18, 2024 at 01:33:25 PM +0530, Shrikanth Hegde wrote: > when a ifdef is used in the below manner, second one could be considered as > duplicate. > > ifdef DEFINE_A > ...code block... > ifdef DEFINE_A > ...code block... > endif > ...code block... > endif > > There are few places in fs code where above pattern was seen. > No functional change is intended here. It only aims to improve code > readability. > Can you please post the xfs changes as a separate patch along with Darrick's RVB tag? This will make it easy for me to apply the resulting patch to the XFS tree. -- Chandan