Re: [PATCH 26/35] Unionfs: Privileged operations workqueue

[Josef Sipek]

On Tue, Dec 05, 2006 at 02:50:13PM -0500, Josef Sipek wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 05, 2006 at 08:27:51PM +0100, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> > 
> > On Dec 4 2006 07:30, Josef 'Jeff' Sipek wrote:
> > >+#include "union.h"
> > >+
> > >+struct workqueue_struct *sioq;
> > >+
> > >+int __init init_sioq(void)
> > 
> > Although it's just me, I'd prefer sioq_init(), sioq_exit(),
> > sioq_run(), etc. to go in hand with what most drivers use as naming
> > (i.e. <modulename> "_" <function>).
> 
> That makes sense.
 
Hrm. Looking at the code, I noticed that the opposite is true:

destroy_filldir_cache();
destroy_inode_cache();
destroy_dentry_cache();
unregister_filesystem(&unionfs_fs_type);

The last one in particular...
 
> > >+void __unionfs_mknod(void *data)
> > >+{
> > >+	struct sioq_args *args = data;
> > >+	struct mknod_args *m = &args->mknod;
> > 
> > Care to make that: const struct mknod_args *m = &args->mknod;?
> > (Same for other places)
>  
> Right.
 
If I make the *args = data line const, then gcc (4.1) yells about modifying
a const variable 3 lines down..

args->err = vfs_mknod(m->parent, m->dentry, m->mode, m->dev);

Sure, I could cast, but that seems like adding cruft for no good reason.

Josef "Jeff" Sipek.

-- 
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not
sure about the former.
		- Albert Einstein
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/