Re: [CFT] [JANITORIAL] Unbork fs.h

[Martin Dalecki <dalecki@evision-ventures.com>]

Daniel Phillips wrote:

>On January 3, 2002 05:05 pm, Ion Badulescu wrote:
>
>>Daniel Phillips wrote:
>>
>>>+static struct file_system_type ext2_fs = {
>>>+       owner:          THIS_MODULE,
>>>+       fs_flags:       FS_REQUIRES_DEV,
>>>+       name:           "ext2",
>>>+       read_super:     ext2_read_super,
>>>+       super_size:     sizeof(struct ext2_sb_info),
>>>+       inode_size:     sizeof(struct ext2_inode_info)
>>>+};
>>>
>>While we're at it, can we extend this model to also include details about 
>>the other filesystem data structures with (potential) private info, i.e.
>>struct dentry and struct file? ext2 might not use them, but other 
>>filesystems certainly do.
>>
>
>Hi,
>
>Could you be more specific about what you mean, please?
>
>>>-static inline struct inode * new_inode(struct super_block *sb)
>>>+static inline struct inode *new_inode (struct super_block *sb)
>>>
>>Minor issue of coding style. I'd steer away from such gratuitious changes, 
>>especially since they divert from the commonly accepted practice of having 
>>no spaces between the name of the function and its arguments.
>>
>
>That's good advice and I'm likely to adhere to it - if you can show that 
>having no spaces between the name of the function and its arguments really is 
>the accepted practice. 
>
It is trust on that. Only the silly GNU indentation style introduced 
something else. Look at the "core kernel" and
not the ugly drivers around it.