On Wed, 13 Sep 2000, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> "Juan J. Quintela" wrote:
> >
> > if everybody agrees, here is the patch against test8 using the second
> > alternative.
>
> How about letting the world see it:
>
> -static void create_empty_buffers(struct page *page, struct inode
> *inode, unsigned long blocksize)
> +void create_empty_buffers(struct page *page, kdev_t dev, unsigned
> long blocksize)
Definitely not. Reason: interfaces using kdev_t to indicate block device
are asking for trouble. Especially when you export them. At least with
inode we have ->i_bdev and that allows to localize the changes during the
potential switch. Bare kdev_t that is supplied by caller means additional
(and large) amount of future changes.
That's one of the reasons why I moved cont_... stuff into fs/buffer.c,
BTW. I suspect that your stuff also belongs there, but I'll need to look
at it to comment.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
