Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Sat, 28 Apr 2001 11:00:46 -0400 (EDT) | From | Alexander Viro <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] cleanup for fixing get_super() races |
| |
On Sat, 28 Apr 2001, Martin Dalecki wrote:
> I think in the context you are inventig the proposed function, > the drivers has allways an inode at hand. And contrary to what Linus
Read the patch. Almost all cases are of the "loop over partitions of foo" kind.
> says, drivers not just know about the devices they handle, they > know about the data they should get - at least in the context > of block devices. And then you could as well pass the inode, which > is already containing a refference to the corresponding sb and > save the whole get_super linear array lookup 8-). I think
No, you don't. Moreover, inode of device (even if you had it) _doesn't_ contain a reference to sb of filesystem mounted from that device.
> the less kdev_t the better! It's overused already anyway, like > for example in the whole SCSI code, where the functions in reality only > want to pass the minor number to differentiate they behaviour... > > If you are gogin to flag the behaviour of the function, > then please use a bitpattern of well definded flags as a parameter, > in a similiar way like it's done for example in many GUI libraries > (GTK, Motif and so on). This would make it far more readabel.
/me looks at From: OK, Albert, what have you done with real Martin?
OK, whoever you are - no, "expandable" interfaces of that sort are rotten idea. What we really need is to replace sync_dev with fsync_dev - it _is_ correct in such context. That's it - 1 bit of information, no bitmaps needed.
/me is still boggled by the idea of somebody refereing to GTK as an example of style...
- 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/
|  |