[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20060907145823.GF7775@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2006 09:58:23 -0500
From: David Teigland <teigland@...hat.com>
To: Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...ux01.gwdg.de>
Cc: Steven Whitehouse <swhiteho@...hat.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Russell Cattelan <cattelan@...hat.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, hch@...radead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 14/16] GFS2: The DLM interface module
On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 02:05:14PM +0200, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
>
> >+int gdlm_get_lock(lm_lockspace_t *lockspace, struct lm_lockname *name,
> >+ lm_lock_t **lockp)
> >+{
> >+ struct gdlm_lock *lp;
> >+ int error;
> >+
> >+ error = gdlm_create_lp((struct gdlm_ls *) lockspace, name, &lp);
> >+
> >+ *lockp = (lm_lock_t *) lp;
>
> This cast is alright in itself. Considering however that lm_lock_t is
> currently typedef'ed to void, it looks a little different. (One _could_
> get rid of it, but better not while it is called lm_lock_t. Leave as-is
> for now.)
Hi Jan,
I'm wondering what you might suggest instead of using the lm_lockspace_t,
lm_lock_t, lm_fsdata_t typedefs. These are opaque objects passed between
gfs and the lock modules. Could you give an example or point to some code
that shows what you're thinking?
Thanks,
Dave
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists