>
>
> > > I believe Vignesh had confirmed the patch.....
> > >
> > > So now this is going to be crazy we have 3 pairs of min/max to deal
> with
> > >
> > > min()/max()
> > > min_t()/max_t()
> > > __min()/__max()
> > >
> > > Can the first one be considered *redundant*
> > min()/max()? That is our crown-jewel. I think the order above is then
> > one how to implement min/max. Use ex min() when possible. If min() does
> > not work, use min_t(). If min_t() does not work, use __min() (if it will
> > be accepted, that is). But you have to be more careful when using
> > __min() since it can have side-effects.
> > > I was wondering that from the very first. calling MACRO(MACRO())
> > > somehow is dirty....Any suggestions !!
> > Why? Calling function1(function2()) is ok (right?) and also when dealing
> > with pci-ids you use macros in macros. And the way __min() is in min()
> > and min_t() is also just common practice to reduce multiple
> declarations.
> >


Some how it did not look good , but you are right ....looks fine and clearly
i understood

Mehul I have tested the patch-compiles cleanly.


Great !!!

Will you patch the complete patching the complete tree ?

-Mehul