From: Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] Add timeout feature Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2008 17:01:52 -0700 Message-ID: <20080629170152.aa769918.akpm@linux-foundation.org> References: <20080624160056t-sato@mail.jp.nec.com> <20080624150925.765155f0.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <7B349EFCD35842D4ADAEB402D2BDCA4E@nsl.ad.nec.co.jp> <20080627115727.149dcb2e.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Reply-To: device-mapper development Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: axboe@kernel.dk, mtk.manpages@googlemail.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, xfs@oss.sgi.com, dm-devel@redhat.com, viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org To: "Takashi Sato" Return-path: In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: dm-devel-bounces@redhat.com Errors-To: dm-devel-bounces@redhat.com List-Id: linux-ext4.vger.kernel.org On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 08:13:07 +0900 "Takashi Sato" wrote: > > It's much better to use NULL here rather than literal zero because the > > reader of this code can then say "ah-hah, we're passing in a pointer". > > Whereas plain old "0" could be a pointer or a scalar. > > The second argument's type of freeze_bdev() is "long", not pointer as below. > struct super_block *freeze_bdev(struct block_device *, long timeout_msec); oh, ok, I goofed, sorry. > So "0" is reasonable, isn't it? yup.