[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20130625113704.89a686a55dcec684e5e99434@canb.auug.org.au>
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 11:37:04 +1000
From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To: Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>
Cc: viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, matthew@....cx, bfields@...ldses.org,
dhowells@...hat.com, sage@...tank.com, smfrench@...il.com,
swhiteho@...hat.com, Trond.Myklebust@...app.com,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-afs@...ts.infradead.org, ceph-devel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-cifs@...r.kernel.org, samba-technical@...ts.samba.org,
cluster-devel@...hat.com, linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, piastryyy@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 06/14] locks: encapsulate the fl_link list handling
Hi Jeff,
Thanks for doing all this work!
Trivial comments below.
On Fri, 21 Jun 2013 08:58:14 -0400 Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> +static inline void
> +locks_insert_global_locks(struct file_lock *fl)
> +{
> + list_add_tail(&fl->fl_link, &file_lock_list);
> +}
We generally do not use "inline" in C files any more and leave it to the
compiler to do that. Also, without the "inline" these function headers
should all be able to fit on single lines like the others here i.e.
static void locks_insert_global_locks(struct file_lock *fl)
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell sfr@...b.auug.org.au
Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped
Powered by blists - more mailing lists