On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 4:29 AM, Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Do you mind just taking it directly? I don't have anything else queued
> up for this cycle.
Done.
I wonder if "false for same, true for different" calling convention
makes much sense, but it matches the old "0 for same" so obviously
makes for a smaller diff.
If it ever ends up confusing people, maybe the sense of that function
should be reversed, and the name changed to something like
"same_inode_version()" or something.
But at least for now the situation seems ok to me,
Linus
