lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Sep]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 09/32] Unionfs: cache-coherency - dentries
On Mon, Sep 03, 2007 at 08:52:17AM +0200, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
>
> On Sep 2 2007 22:20, Josef 'Jeff' Sipek wrote:
> >@@ -184,10 +183,92 @@ out:
> > }
> >
> > /*
> >+ * Determine if the lower inode objects have changed from below the unionfs
> >+ * inode. Return 1 if changed, 0 otherwise.
> >+ */
> >+int is_newer_lower(const struct dentry *dentry)
>
> Could use bool and true/false as return value.

I remember that way back when there was a discussion about the bool type.
What how did that end? Is bool preferred?

> >-int __unionfs_d_revalidate_chain(struct dentry *dentry, struct nameidata *nd)
> >+int __unionfs_d_revalidate_chain(struct dentry *dentry, struct nameidata *nd,
> >+ int willwrite)
>
> also looks like a bool (willwrite)

Right.

> >- if (!__unionfs_d_revalidate_chain(dentry, NULL)) {
> >+ if (!__unionfs_d_revalidate_chain(dentry, NULL, 0)) {
>
> (Are there any callers with ,1?)

Indirectly yes. There are callers that pass a value they get. Very large
majority is 0.

Jeff.

--
Bad pun of the week: The formula 1 control computer suffered from a race
condition

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2007-09-03 16:13    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site