On Wed, 2014-05-21 at 21:12 +0100, Hin-Tak Leung wrote: [snip] > >> diff --git a/fs/hfsplus/hfsplus_fs.h b/fs/hfsplus/hfsplus_fs.h > >> index 83dc292..3c872b2 100644 > >> --- a/fs/hfsplus/hfsplus_fs.h > >> +++ b/fs/hfsplus/hfsplus_fs.h > >> @@ -417,6 +417,7 @@ void hfs_bnode_free(struct hfs_bnode *); > >> struct hfs_bnode *hfs_bnode_create(struct hfs_btree *, u32); > >> void hfs_bnode_get(struct hfs_bnode *); > >> void hfs_bnode_put(struct hfs_bnode *); > >> +bool hfs_bnode_need_zeroout(struct hfs_btree *); > >> > >> /* brec.c */ > >> u16 hfs_brec_lenoff(struct hfs_bnode *, u16, u16 *); > >> @@ -463,7 +464,7 @@ int hfsplus_ext_write_extent(struct inode *); > >> int hfsplus_get_block(struct inode *, sector_t, struct buffer_head *, int); > >> int hfsplus_free_fork(struct super_block *, u32, > >> struct hfsplus_fork_raw *, int); > >> -int hfsplus_file_extend(struct inode *); > >> +int hfsplus_file_extend(struct inode *, bool zeroout); > > > >I think that it doesn't make sense to keep name of second argument here. > > > >Thanks, > >Vyacheslav Dubeyko. > > > > > > I disagree - I think > If you are expanding the function prototype, you could also give the first argument some meaningful name while you are at it? > To be honest, I don't quite follow your remark. I mean really simple thing here. It makes sense to have here the prototype with names for both arguments: int hfsplus_file_extend(struct inode *inode, bool zeroout); or without names of arguments: int hfsplus_file_extend(struct inode *, bool); Mixed declaration looks really weird for my taste. Moreover, most of prototypes are declared without names of arguments. With the best regards, Vyacheslav Dubeyko. -- 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
