Re: [PATCH 01/18] Introduce fsck options

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> writes:

>> Is it a good idea to allow walker to be strict but obj verifier to
>> be not (or vice versa)?  I am wondering why this is not a single
>> struct with two callback function pointers.
>
> Unfortunately not. There are two different walkers used, and in fact,
> fsck_walk_options() is only used to walk the objects, not to fsck them.
>
> Now, I could use only one struct and set the walker, but that is not
> thread-safe, and while code is not threaded yet AFAICT, it might be in the
> future. That is why I decided to be rather safe than sorry. If you want it
> differently, please just say the word, I will make it so.

Thanks for explaining; I just found that the reason behind the
design choice was unclear and wanted to know.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]