From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Cyrill Gorcunov" Subject: Re: [patch 25/26] mount options: fix udf Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 13:57:23 +0300 Message-ID: References: <20080124193341.166753833@szeredi.hu> <20080124193456.220272889@szeredi.hu> <20080124202034.GC6724@cvg> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, jack@suse.cz To: "Miklos Szeredi" Return-path: Received: from wa-out-1112.google.com ([209.85.146.177]:5811 "EHLO wa-out-1112.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751749AbYAYK5Y (ORCPT ); Fri, 25 Jan 2008 05:57:24 -0500 Received: by wa-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id v27so1003835wah.23 for ; Fri, 25 Jan 2008 02:57:23 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Jan 25, 2008 12:29 PM, Miklos Szeredi wrote: > > | + /* 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 > Miklos, I'll check this today evening (a bit busy now). - Cyrill -