Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 16:27:02 +0100
From: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
To: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu>
Cc: gorcunov@gmail.com, 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: <20080125152702.GD28856@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz>
References: <20080124193341.166753833@szeredi.hu> <20080124193456.220272889@szeredi.hu> <20080124202034.GC6724@cvg> <E1JIKsD-0001Kf-Bz@pomaz-ex.szeredi.hu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <E1JIKsD-0001Kf-Bz@pomaz-ex.szeredi.hu>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1206
Lines: 29

> > | +	/* 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.
  Yes, it's going to be removed so don't use it. Actually, basing this
patch on top of -mm is a good idea because there are quite some changes
in Andrew's queue.

> 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?
  As Cyrill wrote, it could be zeroed out in case there is no anchor in
the specified block. So I guess you have to store the passed value
somewhere else..

									Honza
-- 
Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
SuSE CR Labs
--
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/