> > > | + /* 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. > Yes, it's going to be removed so don't use it. Actually, basing this > patch on top of -mm is a good idea because there are quite some changes > in Andrew's queue. > > > 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? > As Cyrill wrote, it could be zeroed out in case there is no anchor in > the specified block. So I guess you have to store the passed value > somewhere else..
But in that case, would the value of the anchor= option matter? This is actually a somewhat philosophical question about what the mount options in /proc/mounts mean: 1) Options _given_ by the user for the mount 2) Options which are _effective_ for the mount If we take interpretation 2) and there was no anchor (whatever that means), then the anchor=N option wasn't effective, and not giving it would have had the same effect. This could be confusing to the user, though... Thanks, Miklos -- 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/
