Re: [PATCH] linux/hdsmart.h: fix goofups

["Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday@crashcourse.ca>]

On Sun, 17 Feb 2008, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:

> Fix goofups of commit 76166952bbc81dda1c8a8c14e75a2aa06f6c052c
> ("<linux/hdsmart.h> is not used by kernel code").
>
> Reported-by: "Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday@crashcourse.ca>
> Signed-off-by: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <bzolnier@gmail.com>
> ---
>  include/linux/hdsmart.h |    4 ++--
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> Index: b/include/linux/hdsmart.h
> ===================================================================
> --- a/include/linux/hdsmart.h
> +++ b/include/linux/hdsmart.h
> @@ -17,7 +17,7 @@
>  #ifndef _LINUX_HDSMART_H
>  #define _LINUX_HDSMART_H
>
> -#ifndef __KERNEL
> +#ifndef __KERNEL__
>  #define OFFLINE_FULL_SCAN		0
>  #define SHORT_SELF_TEST			1
>  #define EXTEND_SELF_TEST		2
> @@ -121,6 +121,6 @@ typedef struct ata_smart_selftestlog_s {
>  	unsigned char			resevered[2];
>  	unsigned char			chksum;
>  } __attribute__ ((packed)) ata_smart_selftestlog_t;
> -#endif /* __KERNEL__ *
> +#endif /* __KERNEL__ */
>
>  #endif	/* _LINUX_HDSMART_H */

if that header file isn't used by any kernel code, why bother having a
check for __KERNEL__ in the first place?  it's being exported to
userspace unchecked:

  include/linux/Kbuild:header-y += hdsmart.h

so why not just toss that check entirely?  otherwise, you're going to
get a header file exported to userspace that has a superfluous
__KERNEL__ test in it.

rday
--


========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day
Linux Consulting, Training and Annoying Kernel Pedantry:
    Have classroom, will lecture.

http://crashcourse.ca                          Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA
========================================================================