> > 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.
>

Mehul I have tested the patch-compiles cleanly.