Re: [PATCH v2] iversion: make inode_cmp_iversion{+raw} return bool instead of s64

From: Jeff Layton
Date: Wed Jan 31 2018 - 12:55:35 EST


On Wed, 2018-01-31 at 08:46 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 4:29 AM, Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Do you mind just taking it directly? I don't have anything else queued
> > up for this cycle.
>
> Done.
>

Thanks...and also many thanks for spotting the original issue. I agree
that this makes it much harder for the callers to get things wrong (and
is probably much more efficient on some arches, as Ted pointed out).

> 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,
>

G. Baroncelli suggested changing the name too, so maybe we should just
go ahead and do it. Let me think on what the best approach is and I may
try to send another patch or PR before the end of the merge window.

Cheers,
--
Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx>