[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20111213154108.GF25802@google.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 07:41:08 -0800
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, jbottomley@...allels.com,
cgroups@...r.kernel.org, bsingharora@...il.com, devel@...nvz.org,
kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] make 'none' field a flag
On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 03:45:38PM +0100, Glauber Costa wrote:
> There is no reason to have a flags field, and then a separate
> bool field just to indicate if 'none' subsystem were explicitly
> requested.
>
> Make it a flag
>
> Signed-off-by: Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com>
Same as the previous patch. Doesn't this change how remount
conditions are checked?
Thanks.
--
tejun
--
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