[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <x49tzaw6efj.fsf@segfault.boston.devel.redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2008 09:24:00 -0400
From: Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Ian Kent <raven@...maw.net>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, autofs@...ux.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/6] autofs4 - make autofs type usage explicit
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> writes:
> On Thu, 23 Oct 2008 10:35:32 +0800
> Ian Kent <raven@...maw.net> wrote:
>
>> This patch further improves autofs mount type usage and provides
>> supplementry explanation of the changes made in the previous patch
>> "autofs4 - cleanup autofs mount type usage".
>>
>> Changes introduced in "autofs4 - cleanup autofs mount type usage":
>>
>> - the type assigned at mount when no type is given is changed
>> from 0 to AUTOFS_TYPE_INDIRECT. This was done because 0 and
>> AUTOFS_TYPE_INDIRECT were being treated implicitly as the same
>> type.
>>
>> - previously, an offset mount had it's type set to
>> AUTOFS_TYPE_DIRECT|AUTOFS_TYPE_OFFSET but the mount control
>> re-implementation needs to be able distinguish all three types.
>> So this was changed to make the type setting explicit.
>>
>> - a type AUTOFS_TYPE_ANY was added for use by the re-implementation
>> when checking if a given path is a mountpoint. It's not really a
>> type as we use this to ask if a given path is a mountpoint in the
>> autofs_dev_ioctl_ismountpoint() function.
>>
>> Changes introduced in this patch:
>>
>> - macros to set and test the autofs mount types have been added to
>> improve readability and make the type usage explicit.
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ <<-- ??
Just for some background, I requested a change here. The reason is that
I ran into problems in the user space daemon where there was this notion
of a bitfield that wasn't always treated as a bitfield. So
AUTOFS_TYPE_ANY should be all bits set, right? Nope. Some places in
the code tested with binary operators, others with ==. It was confusing
and error-prone. The accessor functions at least normalize the interface.
Cheers,
Jeff
--
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