On Wed, 2018-01-31 at 08:46 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > 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. > Thanks...and also many thanks for spotting the original issue. I agree that this makes it much harder for the callers to get things wrong (and is probably much more efficient on some arches, as Ted pointed out). > 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, > G. Baroncelli suggested changing the name too, so maybe we should just go ahead and do it. Let me think on what the best approach is and I may try to send another patch or PR before the end of the merge window. Cheers, -- Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx>
