On 2/9/24 10:57, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 at 18:09, Amir Goldstein <amir73il@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> @@ -132,15 +134,16 @@ struct fuse_file *fuse_file_open(struct fuse_mount *fm, u64 nodeid,
>> struct fuse_conn *fc = fm->fc;
>> struct fuse_file *ff;
>> int opcode = isdir ? FUSE_OPENDIR : FUSE_OPEN;
>> + int noopen = isdir ? fc->no_opendir : fc->no_open;
>
> bool?
>
>>
>> - ff = fuse_file_alloc(fm);
>> + ff = fuse_file_alloc(fm, !noopen);
>> if (!ff)
>> return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
>>
>> ff->fh = 0;
>> /* Default for no-open */
>> ff->open_flags = FOPEN_KEEP_CACHE | (isdir ? FOPEN_CACHE_DIR : 0);
>> - if (isdir ? !fc->no_opendir : !fc->no_open) {
>> + if (!noopen) {
>
> I think this would be more readable without the double negation, i.e
> if the bool variable was called e.g. "open".
We can change to bool. I had _thought_ to suggest in the internal review
round to use
bool is_open = isdir ? !fc->no_opendir : !fc->no_open;
But then we have double negations in the initialization and for me it
didn't seem to be much better than having them below (though two times
then). I guess no issue if you prefer like that.
Thanks,
Bernd
