On 09/05/2012 02:49 AM, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 04, 2012 at 10:10:35AM -0400, Brian Foster wrote:
>> On 09/03/2012 01:17 AM, Dave Chinner wrote:
>>> On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 03:51:50PM -0400, Brian Foster wrote:
>> This is something I see throughout the code that I haven't quite
>> followed (i.e., using the _t typedefs vs. not). Is the general consensus
>> to move away from typedefs when possible?
> Yes. The Irix code that XFS came from was full of typedefs - part
> of it was to try to strictly type check things that were the same
> storage size or on-disk vs in-memory. We've got other ways of doing
> that better (e.g. the endian checking sparse does), and typedefs
> are generally frowned upon in the main kernel code because they
> often obfuscate the code rather than improve it, so we're
> removing them as we modify code or write new code.
Good to know.
>> Ok. I was thinking that we could support the ability to scan by uid/gid
>> regardless of whether quota is enabled, but perhaps there's no purpose
>> to that if a quota isn't enabled.
> I can't really think of a use case for doing this. Making the API
> more expansive in future if someone needs this can be done - it's
> removing stuff that is really hard to do. Hence, don't add it if it
> is not going to be used immediately. :)