lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Sep]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH 5/5][NFS] Cleanup explicit check for mandatory locks
From
Date
On Tue, 2007-09-18 at 10:20 +0400, Pavel Emelyanov wrote:
> Trond Myklebust wrote:
> > On Mon, 2007-09-17 at 11:57 +0400, Pavel Emelyanov wrote:
> >> The __mandatory_lock(inode) macro makes the same check, but
> >> makes the code more readable.
> >
> > Could we please avoid using underscores in macros. Also, why are we
> > breaking the usual convention of capitalising macro names?
>
> Sorry, I've forgot to change all the log - this is not a macro,
> but a static inline function. The underscores are here, because
> the mandatory_lock() one already exists and additionally checks
> for "if (IS_MANDLOCK(inode))"

OK. I withdraw my objection then.

Cheers
Trond

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2007-09-18 15:29    [W:0.038 / U:0.308 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site