Re: [patch 25/26] mount options: fix udf

[Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@gmail.com>]

[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 -