[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       linux-btrfs
Subject:    Re: [PATCH v2] iversion: make inode_cmp_iversion{+raw} return bool instead of s64
From:       Jeff Layton <jlayton () kernel ! org>
Date:       2018-01-31 17:55:24
Message-ID: 1517421324.32569.15.camel () kernel ! org
[Download RAW message or body]

On Wed, 2018-01-31 at 08:46 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 4:29 AM, Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org> 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@kernel.org>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]