Why not just declare ext2_i like the following? It _should_ work:
static inline struct ext2_inode_info *ext2_i(const struct inode *inode)
{
return &(inode->u.ext2_inode_info);
}
Minor nit: this is already done for the ext3 code, but it looks like:
#define EXT3_I (&((inode)->u.ext3_i))
We already have the EXT3_SB, so I thought I would be consistent with it:
#define EXT3_SB (&((sb)->u.ext3_sb))
Do people like the inline version better? Either way, I would like to make
the ext2 and ext3 codes more similar, rather than less.
Cheers, Andreas
-- Andreas Dilger http://sourceforge.net/projects/ext2resize/ http://www-mddsp.enel.ucalgary.ca/People/adilger/- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/