xfs-masters
[Top] [All Lists]

[xfs-masters] Re: [PATCH 2.6.18-rc4-mm3 2/2] fs/xfs: Correcting error-pr

To: Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxx>
Subject: [xfs-masters] Re: [PATCH 2.6.18-rc4-mm3 2/2] fs/xfs: Correcting error-prone boolean-statement
From: Richard Knutsson <ricknu-0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2006 03:38:21 +0200
Cc: akpm@xxxxxxxx, xfs-masters@xxxxxxxxxxx, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20060901111601.R3186664@wobbly.melbourne.sgi.com>
References: <44F77653.6000606@student.ltu.se> <20060901100745.P3186664@wobbly.melbourne.sgi.com> <44F78A67.1060007@student.ltu.se> <20060901111601.R3186664@wobbly.melbourne.sgi.com>
Reply-to: xfs-masters@xxxxxxxxxxx
Sender: xfs-masters-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.8-1.1.fc4 (X11/20060501)
Nathan Scott wrote:

>On Fri, Sep 01, 2006 at 03:18:31AM +0200, Richard Knutsson wrote:
>  
>
>>Nathan Scott wrote:
>>    
>>
>>>Are you using XFS on your systems?  What is your strategy for getting this
>>>runtime tested going to be?  Or are you delegating that responsibility? :)
>>> 
>>>      
>>>
>>Sorry, can't say that I do. So pretty please... ;)
>>Seriously, I can not find a state when this may fail (if not "if (var == 
>>TRUE)" happend to be correct for 'var' != 0 != 1, but that is just a bug 
>>waiting to happend).
>>But please correct me if I am wrong.
>>    
>>
>
>OK, I'll run with it in my own testing for awhile.
>
Thanks!

>                                                    I was also curious to
>why you didn't remove the other few B_TRUE/B_FALSE occurences?  (and the
>typedef)?
>  
>
Working on it. Should be out tomorrow(or in about 20 hours).
 From the "Re: Conversion to generic boolean"-thread (started on 
06-08-28), there were those who did not seem to like the conversion. But 
since no-one complained about removing "== B_FALSE/B_TRUE", I thought it 
best to remove them first and then take the rest from there.

>cheers.
>
>  
>
cu


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