[lkml]   [2011]   [Nov]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 16/28] namespace: checkpatch wanking
    On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 07:39:11PM -0800, Joe Perches wrote:

    > No worries.
    > I think patches 1 thru 14 are reasonable though
    > and do apply with a few offsets to vfsmount-guts.

    OK... BTW, speaking of this one:

    -static int mnt_id_start = 0;
    +static int mnt_id_start;
    static int mnt_group_start = 1;

    this deserves a separate NAK; explicit init here is actually more clear -
    the variable is more or less analogous to mnt_group_start and it's less
    distracting to have initializers spelled out in similar way as well.

    - if ((child_mnt = __lookup_mnt(path->mnt, path->dentry, 1)))
    + child_mnt = __lookup_mnt(path->mnt, path->dentry, 1);
    + if (child_mnt)
    return child_mnt;

    Maybe, maybe not; in the #vfsmount-guts I seriously pondered turning that
    child_mnt = ...;
    if (child_mnt) {
    return &child_mnt->mnt;
    } else {
    return NULL;
    Hell knows... Since __lookup_mnt() returns struct mount now *and* lookup_mnt()
    returns struct vfsmount (much shrunk subset of the original; almost nothing
    in there is needed for anything outside of core VFS code) we need if or ?:
    after unlock as well. So it might make sense to split the codepaths once...

    - if (flags & MNT_FORCE && sb->s_op->umount_begin) {
    + if (flags & MNT_FORCE && sb->s_op->umount_begin)
    - }

    Probably. It used to be just a method call, then it had grown lock/unlock
    around it, then lock went down into the method instances and the compound
    statement stayed.

    -static int do_add_mount(struct vfsmount *newmnt, struct path *path, int mnt_flags)
    +static int
    +do_add_mount(struct vfsmount *newmnt, struct path *path, int mnt_flags)

    I don't mind BSD style like that, but again, check #vfsmount-guts; this
    one takes struct mount * now, so that line happens to be below 80 cols.

    -static int select_submounts(struct vfsmount *parent, struct list_head *graveyard)
    +static int
    +select_submounts(struct vfsmount *parent, struct list_head *graveyard)


    - struct vfsmount *mnt = list_entry(tmp, struct vfsmount, mnt_child);
    + struct vfsmount *mnt = list_entry(tmp, struct vfsmount,
    + mnt_child);

    Ditto (mnt_child moved into struct mount now)

    - if (!(page = __get_free_page(GFP_KERNEL)))
    + page = __get_free_page(GFP_KERNEL);
    + if (!page)
    return -ENOMEM;

    Not sure... In general I'd agree, but in this case...

     \ /
      Last update: 2011-11-30 07:53    [W:0.021 / U:33.148 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site