lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Dec]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 26/35] Unionfs: Privileged operations workqueue

On Dec 6 2006 12:32, Josef Sipek wrote:
>> > >+int __init init_sioq(void)
>> >
>> > Although it's just me, I'd prefer sioq_init(), sioq_exit(),
>> > sioq_run(), etc. to go in hand with what most drivers use as naming
>> > (i.e. <modulename> "_" <function>).
>>
>> That makes sense.
>
>Hrm. Looking at the code, I noticed that the opposite is true:
>
>destroy_filldir_cache();
>destroy_inode_cache();
>destroy_dentry_cache();
>unregister_filesystem(&unionfs_fs_type);
>
>The last one in particular...

I smell a big conspiracy! So yet again it's mixed mixed

fs$ grep __init */*.c | grep -v ' init_'
sysfs/mount.c:int __init sysfs_init(void)
sysv/inode.c:int __init sysv_init_icache(void)
proc/vmcore.c:static int __init vmcore_init(void)
proc/nommu.c:static int __init proc_nommu_init(void)
proc/proc_misc.c:void __init proc_misc_init(void)
proc/proc_tty.c:void __init proc_tty_init(void)
proc/root.c:void __init proc_root_init(void)

>
>> > >+void __unionfs_mknod(void *data)
>> > >+{
>> > >+ struct sioq_args *args = data;
>> > >+ struct mknod_args *m = &args->mknod;
>> >
>> > Care to make that: const struct mknod_args *m = &args->mknod;?
>> > (Same for other places)
>>
>> Right.
>
>If I make the *args = data line const, then gcc (4.1) yells about modifying
>a const variable 3 lines down..
>
>args->err = vfs_mknod(m->parent, m->dentry, m->mode, m->dev);
>
>Sure, I could cast, but that seems like adding cruft for no good reason.

No I despise casts more than missing consts. Why would gcc throw a warning?
Let's take this super simple program

<<<
struct inode;
struct dentry;

struct mknod_args {
struct inode *parent;
struct dentry *dentry;
int mode;
int dev;
};
extern int vfs_mknod(struct inode *, struct dentry *, int, int /*dev_t*/);
int main(void) {
const struct mknod_args *m;
vfs_mknod(m->parent, m->dentry, m->mode, m->dev);
return 0;
}

As undefined-behavior as it looks, it's got the const and vfs_mknod, as well as
an approximation of dev_t. It throws no warnings when compiled with `gcc -Wall
-c test.c`. Did I miss something?



-`J'
--
-
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: 2006-12-06 19:59    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans