[Miklos Szeredi - Fri, Jan 25, 2008 at 10:29:21AM +0100]
| > | + /* is this correct? */
| > | + if (sbi->s_anchor[2] != 0)
| > | + seq_printf(seq, ",anchor=%u", sbi->s_anchor[2]);
| >
| > you know, I would prefer to use form UDF_SB_ANCHOR(sb)[2]
| > in sake of style unification but we should wait for Jan's
| > decision (i'm not the expert in this area ;)
|
| I think UDF_SB_ANCHOR macro was removed by some patch in -mm.
|
| I'm more interested if the second element of the s_anchor array really
| does always have the value of the 'anchor=N' mount option. I haven't
| been able to verify that fully. Do you have some insight into that?
|
| Thanks,
| Miklos
|
Hello Miklos,
well, actually - no. anchor entities can be set to 0 if we have been failed
to read them in udf_find_anchor(). So it seems you've to use some
additional flag to store it.
Btw, Miklos the patch is over -mm tree?
- Cyrill -
--
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/
