| To: | "Takashi Sato" <t-sato@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH 3/3] Add timeout feature |
| From: | Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Sun, 29 Jun 2008 17:01:52 -0700 |
| Cc: | <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <linux-ext4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>, <dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx>, <linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <axboe@xxxxxxxxx>, <mtk.manpages@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| In-reply-to: | <C2E97AF9310E467696FA7F4C62C88AC5@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <20080624160056t-sato@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20080624150925.765155f0.akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <7B349EFCD35842D4ADAEB402D2BDCA4E@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20080627115727.149dcb2e.akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <C2E97AF9310E467696FA7F4C62C88AC5@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 08:13:07 +0900 "Takashi Sato" <t-sato@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > It's much better to use NULL here rather than literal zero because the > > reader of this code can then say "ah-hah, we're passing in a pointer". > > Whereas plain old "0" could be a pointer or a scalar. > > The second argument's type of freeze_bdev() is "long", not pointer as below. > struct super_block *freeze_bdev(struct block_device *, long timeout_msec); oh, ok, I goofed, sorry. > So "0" is reasonable, isn't it? yup. |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: rfc: kill ino64 mount option, Nathan Scott |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | American Chinese Stocks, Ruthie Ulery |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [PATCH 3/3] Add timeout feature, Takashi Sato |
| Next by Thread: | [PATCH 3/3] Add timeout feature, Takashi Sato |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |