From: Al Viro on
On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 04:12:23PM +1100, NeilBrown wrote:
>
> Two patches.
>
> The second removes S_BIAS which is unnecessary and so potentially
> confusing.
>
> The first I found the need for while preparing the second patch. It
> seems that get_active_super doesn't follow the pattern of all other
> code that walks the super_blocks list.

See #untested in vfs tree...
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo(a)vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
From: Neil Brown on
On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 09:20:11 +0000
Al Viro <viro(a)ZenIV.linux.org.uk> wrote:

> On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 04:12:23PM +1100, NeilBrown wrote:
> >
> > Two patches.
> >
> > The second removes S_BIAS which is unnecessary and so potentially
> > confusing.
> >
> > The first I found the need for while preparing the second patch. It
> > seems that get_active_super doesn't follow the pattern of all other
> > code that walks the super_blocks list.
>
> See #untested in vfs tree...
>

Ahhh, I see I've been beaten to it by 2 days... I should have posted that
patch months ago :-)

Thanks anyway.

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