>
> >>>Just went through the archives....
> >>>
> >>>        I tried to recreate the compile-failure (was some time ago
> since
> >>>        it
> >>>        happened) when using min()/max() in a struct but it happily
> compiled it
> >>>        so (thankfully) you are correct, just need to use min()/max().
> :)
> >>>
> >>>        Richard Knutsson
> >>>
> >>>Do you mean to say that you were able to compile when the macros were
> used inside struct?
> >>>Im still not able to get that to happen...
> >>>
> >>>I tried that change in linux-2.6/fs/lockd/mon.c
> >>>
> >>>static struct rpc_procinfo   nsm_procedures[] = {
> >>>[SM_MON] = {
> >>>             .p_proc         = SM_MON,
> >>>             .p_encode       = (kxdrproc_t) xdr_encode_mon,
> >>>             .p_decode       = (kxdrproc_t) xdr_decode_stat_res,
> >>>             .p_bufsiz       = max(SM_mon_sz, SM_monres_sz) << 2,
>
> Will work since both SM_mon_sz and SM_monres_sz are compile-time
> constants, not true?
>
> [ ... snip ... ]


So...

The patch actually modifies the macro's last line in kernel.h

-       _x < _y ? _x : _y; })
+       __min(_x, _y); })

But what I am unable to understand is why is the compiler unhappy with
* _x < _y ? _x : _y; })*

and happy with new macro been called internally *__min(_x,_y);*

Mehul