From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andreas Rohner Subject: Re: [PATCH] nilfs2: depending on flags, update segment usage instead of cleaning Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2014 15:17:08 +0100 Message-ID: <52DE8164.1020303@gmx.net> References: <1390140141-4432-1-git-send-email-andreas.rohner@gmx.net> <20140120.014916.57469358.konishi.ryusuke@lab.ntt.co.jp> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20140120.014916.57469358.konishi.ryusuke-Zyj7fXuS5i5L9jVzuh4AOg@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-nilfs-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: Ryusuke Konishi Cc: linux-nilfs-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org Hi Ryusuke, On 2014-01-19 17:49, Ryusuke Konishi wrote: > Additional comments are as follows: > > - For NILFS_IOCTL_SET_SUINFO, v_flags should be used to define which > fields (lastmod, nblocks, flags) are modified. These flags should > be defined with bit masks. I forgot to mention in my cover letter, that I decided not to use the v_flags field for the flags, because I needed a new structure to contain the segment number anyway. It just seemed to be a better choice to put the flags there as well. But if you want I can always change it to use the v_flags field. Best regards, Andreas Rohner -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nilfs" in the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html