Hi Christoph,

On Mon, Sep 02, 2019 at 05:47:37AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 02, 2019 at 08:13:06PM +0800, Gao Xiang wrote:
> > Hi Christoph,
> > 
> > On Mon, Sep 02, 2019 at 05:10:21AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > >  {
> > > > -       struct erofs_vnode *vi = ptr;
> > > > -
> > > > -       inode_init_once(&vi->vfs_inode);
> > > > +       inode_init_once(&((struct erofs_inode *)ptr)->vfs_inode);
> > > 
> > > Why doesn't this use EROFS_I?  This looks a little odd.
> > 
> > Thanks for your reply and suggestion...
> > EROFS_I seems the revert direction ---> inode to erofs_inode
> > here we need "erofs_inode" to inode...
> > 
> > Am I missing something?.... Hope not....
> 
> No, you are not.  But the cast still looks odd.  Why not:
> 
>       struct erofs_inode *ei = ptr;
> 
>       inode_init_once(&ei->vfs_inode);

That is the old way, I thought you don't like the extra variable...
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-erofs/20190830154551.ga11...@infradead.org/
I am ok with either form, anyway, let me use the old way....

Thanks,
Gao Xiang

_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
de...@linuxdriverproject.org
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel

Reply via email to