From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [PATCH] hfsplus: fix "unused node is not erased" error Date: Thu, 22 May 2014 00:07:57 -0700 Message-ID: <20140522000757.7d8cdad4.akpm@linux-foundation.org> References: <1400703162.58161.BPMail_high_noncarrier@web172302.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> <1400740185.2427.5.camel@slavad-CELSIUS-H720> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Hin-Tak Leung , saproj@gmail.com, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, aia21@cam.ac.uk, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, hch@infradead.org, kalaracey@gmail.com To: Vyacheslav Dubeyko Return-path: Received: from mail.linuxfoundation.org ([140.211.169.12]:53741 "EHLO mail.linuxfoundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750841AbaEVHIh (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 May 2014 03:08:37 -0400 In-Reply-To: <1400740185.2427.5.camel@slavad-CELSIUS-H720> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu, 22 May 2014 10:29:45 +0400 Vyacheslav Dubeyko wrote: > On Wed, 2014-05-21 at 21:12 +0100, Hin-Tak Leung wrote: > > [snip] > > >> diff --git a/fs/hfsplus/hfsplus_fs.h b/fs/hfsplus/hfsplus_fs.h > > >> index 83dc292..3c872b2 100644 > > >> --- a/fs/hfsplus/hfsplus_fs.h > > >> +++ b/fs/hfsplus/hfsplus_fs.h > > >> @@ -417,6 +417,7 @@ void hfs_bnode_free(struct hfs_bnode *); > > >> struct hfs_bnode *hfs_bnode_create(struct hfs_btree *, u32); > > >> void hfs_bnode_get(struct hfs_bnode *); > > >> void hfs_bnode_put(struct hfs_bnode *); > > >> +bool hfs_bnode_need_zeroout(struct hfs_btree *); > > >> > > >> /* brec.c */ > > >> u16 hfs_brec_lenoff(struct hfs_bnode *, u16, u16 *); > > >> @@ -463,7 +464,7 @@ int hfsplus_ext_write_extent(struct inode *); > > >> int hfsplus_get_block(struct inode *, sector_t, struct buffer_head *, int); > > >> int hfsplus_free_fork(struct super_block *, u32, > > >> struct hfsplus_fork_raw *, int); > > >> -int hfsplus_file_extend(struct inode *); > > >> +int hfsplus_file_extend(struct inode *, bool zeroout); > > > > > >I think that it doesn't make sense to keep name of second argument here. > > > > > >Thanks, > > >Vyacheslav Dubeyko. > > > > > > > > > > I disagree - I think > > If you are expanding the function prototype, you could also give the first argument some meaningful name while you are at it? > > > > To be honest, I don't quite follow your remark. I mean really simple > thing here. It makes sense to have here the prototype with names for > both arguments: > > int hfsplus_file_extend(struct inode *inode, bool zeroout); > > or without names of arguments: > > int hfsplus_file_extend(struct inode *, bool); > > Mixed declaration looks really weird for my taste. Moreover, most of > prototypes are declared without names of arguments. > Yes, mixed is weird. I personally prefer that the names be included - if you ever actually have to *read* one of these declarations it can be quite maddening when they are omitted.