[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <56FB8082.6080501@nod.at>
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2016 09:30:10 +0200
From: Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>
To: Yaowei Bai <baiyaowei@...s.chinamobile.com>
Cc: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fs/vfs: improve __mnt_is_readonly
Am 30.03.2016 um 03:23 schrieb Yaowei Bai:
> On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 11:43:21AM +0200, Richard Weinberger wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 8:35 AM, Yaowei Bai
>> <baiyaowei@...s.chinamobile.com> wrote:
>>> On Sat, Mar 26, 2016 at 12:43:32AM +0000, Al Viro wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 10:01:26AM +0800, Yaowei Bai wrote:
>>>>> This patch refactors __mnt_is_readonly and makes it return bool to
>>>>> improve readability due to this particular function only using either
>>>>> one or zero as its return value.
>>>>
>>>> Improve in which way, if I may ask?
>>>
>>> A boolean return value can be more matchable with function's name and
>>> more suitable as this function only returns 0/1.
>>
>> Please also think of the arguments made on linux-mtd[1].
>> Hopping from one subsystem to another trying to sneak patches
>> in is not the best idea... :-)
>
> Acturally, this patch was sent before the mtd ones and all of them were sent
> in one shot. You're really thinking too much.:-)
I was referring to your answer not to your patch.
Thanks,
//richard
Powered by blists - more mailing lists