On Wednesday 02 of March 2011 12:23:45 you wrote: > Hi, > > On Wed, 2 Mar 2011 11:13:32 +0100, dexen deVries wrote: > > The patch I've submited may be a wrong solution; perhaps instead the > > algorithm of nilfs_find_fs() (around lib/nilfs.c:179,211) should be > > improved. > > > > Regards, > > Well, allowing directory pathname for nilfs commands seems a good idea > to me. Why not apply it to other commands except nilfs_cleanerd ? > Goot point, I'm on it right now. Reading through sbin/cleanerd/cleanerd.c, it seems it doesn't make any distinction between dev and dir, just supplies program's argument as both dev and dir arguments to nilfs_open(). In my understanding, that'd be the cleanest way of using it. However, the current behavior of nilfs_open() (or more exactly, of nilfs_find_fs()) doesn't support that semantics -- if dev is passed, it kind of ignores the dir argument. Perhaps I should try to fix nilfs_find_fs() rather than put stat() and S_ISDIR() in every program? -- dexen deVries [[[â][â]]] 47. As Will Rogers would have said, "There is no such thing as a free variable." (Alan Perlis, `Epigrams on Programming') -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nilfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
