Re: [PATCH 5/5][NFS] Cleanup explicit check for mandatory locks

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 [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

---

• References:
  • [PATCH 5/5][NFS] Cleanup explicit check for mandatory locks
    • From: Pavel Emelyanov <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH 5/5][NFS] Cleanup explicit check for mandatory locks
    • From: Trond Myklebust <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH 5/5][NFS] Cleanup explicit check for mandatory locks
    • From: Pavel Emelyanov <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: PCI Interrupt
• Next by Date: Re: [kvm-devel] [PATCH 2/3] Refactor hypercall infrastructure (v3)
• Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH 5/5][NFS] Cleanup explicit check for mandatory locks
• Next by thread: [PATCH] Wake up mandatory locks waiter on chmod (v2)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]