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    [W:0.022 / U:29.972 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site