> On Fri 25-01-08 16:50:15, Miklos Szeredi wrote: > > > > > | + /* 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. > > > Yes, it's going to be removed so don't use it. Actually, basing this > > > patch on top of -mm is a good idea because there are quite some changes > > > in Andrew's queue. > > > > > > > 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? > > > As Cyrill wrote, it could be zeroed out in case there is no anchor in > > > the specified block. So I guess you have to store the passed value > > > somewhere else.. > > > > But in that case, would the value of the anchor= option matter? > No, it would not. > > > This is actually a somewhat philosophical question about what the > > mount options in /proc/mounts mean: > > > > 1) Options _given_ by the user for the mount > > 2) Options which are _effective_ for the mount > > > > If we take interpretation 2) and there was no anchor (whatever that > > means), then the anchor=N option wasn't effective, and not giving it > > would have had the same effect. > > > > This could be confusing to the user, though... > Hmm, given that options are modified by remount for some filesystems, > it's probably the best to display the effective state. So your code should > display the right thing as it is. OK. Cyrill, Jan, thanks for the reviews. Miklos - 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
