Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 3 Sep 2007 10:08:25 -0400 | From | "Josef 'Jeff' Sipek" <> | Subject | Re: [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/
| |