Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Fri, 15 Jun 2001 17:49:46 +0100 | | From | Matthew Wilcox <> | | Subject | Re: [Final call for testers][PATCH] superblock handling changes (2.4.6-pre3) |
| |
On Fri, Jun 15, 2001 at 12:34:41PM -0400, Alexander Viro wrote: > Aside of the missing ->s_count++ - no arguments.
My mistake.
> > > + list_add (&s->s_list, super_blocks.prev); > > > > I'd use list_add_tail(&s->s_list, super_blocks); > > Umm... Why? I've no problems with either variant, but I really see no > clear win (or loss) in list_add_tail here. If there is some code that > relies on the order in that list it's badly broken - remember, we used > to reuse unmounted superblocks, so order might be almost arbitrary.
It does exactly the same thing -- inserting at the end of the list -- just slightly more obvious what its doing.
-- Revolutions do not require corporate support. - 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/
|  |