[lkml]   [2001]   [Jun]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [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
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 12:55    [W:0.050 / U:0.280 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site