Re: [PATCH trivial] include/linux/coda.h: remove useless '#else'

[Chen Gang <gang.chen@asianux.com>]

On 08/05/2013 09:53 AM, Chen Gang wrote:
> On 08/05/2013 09:21 AM, Joe Perches wrote:
>> On Mon, 2013-08-05 at 08:24 +0800, Chen Gang wrote:
>>> On 07/31/2013 11:16 AM, Chen Gang F T wrote:
>>>> On 07/31/2013 09:53 AM, Chen Gang wrote:
>>>>> On 07/31/2013 09:44 AM, Chen Gang wrote:
>>>>>> On 07/30/2013 08:29 PM, Joe Perches wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tue, 2013-07-30 at 15:30 +0800, Chen Gang wrote:
>>>>>>>> '#else' is useless, need remove.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Chen Gang <gang.chen@asianux.com>
>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>>  include/linux/coda.h |    1 -
>>>>>>>>  1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> diff --git a/include/linux/coda.h b/include/linux/coda.h
>>>>>>>> index cff544f..d30209b 100644
>>>>>>>> --- a/include/linux/cod
>>>>>>>> +++ b/include/linux/coda.h
>>>>>>>> @@ -60,7 +60,6 @@ Mellon the rights to redistribute these changes without encumbrance.
>>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>>  #if defined(__linux__)
>>>>>>>>  typedef unsigned long long u_quad_t;
>>>>>>>> -#else
>>>>>>>>  #endif
>>>>>>>>  #include <uapi/linux/coda.h>
>>>>>>>>  #endif 
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why have the #if at all?
>>>>>>>
>>>
>>> Hmm... if any members have some questions about the fix, commonly it
>>> means the related fix need additional improvement.
>>>
>>> Is it better to use BUILD_BUG() for the fix ?
>>
>> Probably not.  __linux__ is predefined by gcc.
>>
>> Using an #ifdef __linux__ might make some sense in
>> in include/uapi, but not in include/linux.
>>
>>
> 

In fact, in my opinion "uapi/linux/coda.h" should not content "#ifdef
__linux__", since it is already in "uapi/linux/" sub-directory.

If it still wants to universal enough to multiple OS, need move it from
"uapi/linux/coda.h" to "uapi/coda/coda.h".

:-)


> Hmm... since "linux/coda.h" will include "uapi/linux/coda.h", it is
> necessary to check __linux__ whether defined.
> 
> For some old compilers which is still widely used, they really do not
> define __linux__, when use these compilers, we need give a necessary
> check, if can not pass, need report BUILD_BUG().
> 
> e.g. for some versions of openrisc, please ref:
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/7/30/888. (it is in applying work flow).
> 
> 
> Thanks.
> 


-- 
Chen Gang