From: Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] iversion: make inode_cmp_iversion{+raw} return bool instead of s64 Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2018 08:46:41 -0800 Message-ID: References: <20180130173126.2806-1-jlayton@kernel.org> <20180130203221.29310-1-jlayton@kernel.org> <1517401762.3612.0.camel@kernel.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Cc: linux-fsdevel , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Al Viro , Linux NFS Mailing List , linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, "Theodore Ts'o" , linux-xfs , linux-btrfs , linux-integrity , Trond Myklebust To: Jeff Layton Return-path: Received: from mail-it0-f68.google.com ([209.85.214.68]:52957 "EHLO mail-it0-f68.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753270AbeAaQqm (ORCPT ); Wed, 31 Jan 2018 11:46:42 -0500 In-Reply-To: <1517401762.3612.0.camel@kernel.org> Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 4:29 AM, Jeff Layton wrote: > > Do you mind just taking it directly? I don't have anything else queued > up for this cycle. Done. I wonder if "false for same, true for different" calling convention makes much sense, but it matches the old "0 for same" so obviously makes for a smaller diff. If it ever ends up confusing people, maybe the sense of that function should be reversed, and the name changed to something like "same_inode_version()" or something. But at least for now the situation seems ok to me, Linus