[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH 3/3] Add timeout feature

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?


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>