Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1761524AbYAYJ3q (ORCPT ); Fri, 25 Jan 2008 04:29:46 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1756441AbYAYJ32 (ORCPT ); Fri, 25 Jan 2008 04:29:28 -0500 Received: from fxip-0047f.externet.hu ([88.209.222.127]:44837 "EHLO pomaz-ex.szeredi.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1760034AbYAYJ30 (ORCPT ); Fri, 25 Jan 2008 04:29:26 -0500 To: gorcunov@gmail.com CC: miklos@szeredi.hu, akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, jack@suse.cz In-reply-to: <20080124202034.GC6724@cvg> (message from Cyrill Gorcunov on Thu, 24 Jan 2008 23:20:34 +0300) Subject: Re: [patch 25/26] mount options: fix udf References: <20080124193341.166753833@szeredi.hu> <20080124193456.220272889@szeredi.hu> <20080124202034.GC6724@cvg> Message-Id: From: Miklos Szeredi Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 10:29:21 +0100 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 823 Lines: 21 > | + /* is this correct? */ > | + if (sbi->s_anchor[2] != 0) > | + seq_printf(seq, ",anchor=%u", sbi->s_anchor[2]); > > you know, I would prefer to use form UDF_SB_ANCHOR(sb)[2] > in sake of style unification but we should wait for Jan's > decision (i'm not the expert in this area ;) I think UDF_SB_ANCHOR macro was removed by some patch in -mm. I'm more interested if the second element of the s_anchor array really does always have the value of the 'anchor=N' mount option. I haven't been able to verify that fully. Do you have some insight into that? Thanks, Miklos -- 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/