[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+55aFxB6og=iRkRchiOrr8EW2=jgb_i4nUiPsvEa+8F64APxA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2018 08:46:41 -0800
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>
Cc: linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Linux NFS Mailing List <linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
linux-xfs <linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-btrfs <linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-integrity <linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org>,
Trond Myklebust <trondmy@...marydata.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] iversion: make inode_cmp_iversion{+raw} return bool
instead of s64
On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 4:29 AM, Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> Do you mind just taking it directly? I don't have anything else queued
> up for this cycle.
Done.
I wonder if "false for same, true for different" calling convention
makes much sense, but it matches the old "0 for same" so obviously
makes for a smaller diff.
If it ever ends up confusing people, maybe the sense of that function
should be reversed, and the name changed to something like
"same_inode_version()" or something.
But at least for now the situation seems ok to me,
Linus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists