[Miklos Szeredi - Fri, Jan 25, 2008 at 10:29:21AM +0100] | > | + /* is this correct? */ | > | + if (sbi->s_anchor[2] != 0) | > | + seq_printf(seq, ",anchor=%u", sbi->s_anchor[2]); | > | > you know, I would prefer to use form UDF_SB_ANCHOR(sb)[2] | > in sake of style unification but we should wait for Jan's | > decision (i'm not the expert in this area ;) | | I think UDF_SB_ANCHOR macro was removed by some patch in -mm. | | I'm more interested if the second element of the s_anchor array really | does always have the value of the 'anchor=N' mount option. I haven't | been able to verify that fully. Do you have some insight into that? | | Thanks, | Miklos | Hello Miklos, well, actually - no. anchor entities can be set to 0 if we have been failed to read them in udf_find_anchor(). So it seems you've to use some additional flag to store it. Btw, Miklos the patch is over -mm tree? - Cyrill - - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
