>     >>>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);*
Ok, _now_ I see. I used the xdr4.c but mon.c seems happy with the new
max() (as you asked). Can only say: dunno. It should not make a difference.

Richard Knutsson

I was wondering that from the very first. calling MACRO(MACRO()) somehow is dirty....Any suggestions !!

 

Mehul