[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070903140825.GB22745@filer.fsl.cs.sunysb.edu>
Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2007 10:08:25 -0400
From: "Josef 'Jeff' Sipek" <jsipek@...sunysb.edu>
To: Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...putergmbh.de>
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, hch@...radead.org,
viro@....linux.org.uk, bharata@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
j.blunck@...harburg.de, Erez Zadok <ezk@...sunysb.edu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 09/32] Unionfs: cache-coherency - dentries
On Mon, Sep 03, 2007 at 08:52:17AM +0200, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
>
> On Sep 2 2007 22:20, Josef 'Jeff' Sipek wrote:
> >@@ -184,10 +183,92 @@ out:
> > }
> >
> > /*
> >+ * Determine if the lower inode objects have changed from below the unionfs
> >+ * inode. Return 1 if changed, 0 otherwise.
> >+ */
> >+int is_newer_lower(const struct dentry *dentry)
>
> Could use bool and true/false as return value.
I remember that way back when there was a discussion about the bool type.
What how did that end? Is bool preferred?
> >-int __unionfs_d_revalidate_chain(struct dentry *dentry, struct nameidata *nd)
> >+int __unionfs_d_revalidate_chain(struct dentry *dentry, struct nameidata *nd,
> >+ int willwrite)
>
> also looks like a bool (willwrite)
Right.
> >- if (!__unionfs_d_revalidate_chain(dentry, NULL)) {
> >+ if (!__unionfs_d_revalidate_chain(dentry, NULL, 0)) {
>
> (Are there any callers with ,1?)
Indirectly yes. There are callers that pass a value they get. Very large
majority is 0.
Jeff.
--
Bad pun of the week: The formula 1 control computer suffered from a race
condition
-
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