Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757972AbYAYNma (ORCPT ); Fri, 25 Jan 2008 08:42:30 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755208AbYAYNmT (ORCPT ); Fri, 25 Jan 2008 08:42:19 -0500 Received: from fg-out-1718.google.com ([72.14.220.159]:14498 "EHLO fg-out-1718.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754848AbYAYNmR (ORCPT ); Fri, 25 Jan 2008 08:42:17 -0500 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version:content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; b=PMLKUsVwH7yQH0KC07bW4QL5jy1SQZjO8fQdJ8OD3ghQ3zp80aUPqSRoiVyrSQZrUhcaDoUw99gZ6E8C3kmR1FpWUjzBieimzeRjukKSDw0gx+AkOHpCFP3vXxiHcUlCODDf5EPhAtYq0s7bxe8qJ1mcbcynhuRo+NSaP+dZFJA= Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 16:41:58 +0300 From: Cyrill Gorcunov To: Miklos Szeredi Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, jack@suse.cz Subject: Re: [patch 25/26] mount options: fix udf Message-ID: <20080125134158.GA7233@cvg> References: <20080124193341.166753833@szeredi.hu> <20080124193456.220272889@szeredi.hu> <20080124202034.GC6724@cvg> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.16 (2007-06-09) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1157 Lines: 33 [Miklos Szeredi - Fri, Jan 25, 2008 at 10:29:21AM +0100] | > | + /* 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 | Hello Miklos, well, actually - no. anchor entities can be set to 0 if we have been failed to read them in udf_find_anchor(). So it seems you've to use some additional flag to store it. Btw, Miklos the patch is over -mm tree? - Cyrill - -- 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/