Hi all,
ATM, you see code like this:
#define SUPERBLOCK \
((struct ext2_super_block *)(FSYS_BUF))
#define GROUP_DESC \
((struct ext2_group_desc *) \
((int)SUPERBLOCK + sizeof(struct ext2_super_block)))
#define INODE \
((struct ext2_inode *)((int)GROUP_DESC + EXT2_BLOCK_SIZE(SUPERBLOCK)))
Why not do it like this?
struct ext2_buffer {
struct ext2_super_block sb;
struct ext2_group_desc gd;
struct ext2_inode inode;
...
};
#define FS_STATE (* (struct ext2_buffer*) FSYS_BUF)
Then, access code looks like "FS_STATE.inode" rather than "INODE".
That looks nicer, IMHO, and it becomes obvious what FS_STATE actually
is.
Cheers,
Andrew
_______________________________________________
Bug-grub mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-grub
