From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list xfs); Tue, 03 Oct 2006 16:59:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda1.sgi.com [192.48.168.28]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/SuSE Linux 0.7) with ESMTP id k93NxOaG028101 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2006 16:59:26 -0700 Received: from prod.aconex.com (mail.app.aconex.com [203.89.192.138]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id 57C7246A3A7 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2006 16:58:43 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: Review: clean up inode i_flags handling From: Nathan Scott Reply-To: nscott@aconex.com In-Reply-To: <1159914373.32536.9.camel@edge> References: <20061003051325.GR4695059@melbourne.sgi.com> <1159914373.32536.9.camel@edge> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2006 09:58:50 +1000 Message-Id: <1159919930.32536.14.camel@edge> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: xfs To: David Chinner Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com On Wed, 2006-10-04 at 08:26 +1000, Nathan Scott wrote: > On Tue, 2006-10-03 at 15:13 +1000, David Chinner wrote: > > > > This part seems like overkill, I'd just do that inline like the clear > variant, since its just one instruction ... > ..but I guess you did it for consistency, as that one instruction is otherwise going to have to be open coded in a few places ... *shrug* looks good to me either way. cheers. -- Nathan