On 09/05/2012 02:49 AM, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Tue, Sep 04, 2012 at 10:10:35AM -0400, Brian Foster wrote: >> On 09/03/2012 01:17 AM, Dave Chinner wrote: >>> On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 03:51:50PM -0400, Brian Foster wrote: ... >> This is something I see throughout the code that I haven't quite >> followed (i.e., using the _t typedefs vs. not). Is the general consensus >> to move away from typedefs when possible? > > Yes. The Irix code that XFS came from was full of typedefs - part > of it was to try to strictly type check things that were the same > storage size or on-disk vs in-memory. We've got other ways of doing > that better (e.g. the endian checking sparse does), and typedefs > are generally frowned upon in the main kernel code because they > often obfuscate the code rather than improve it, so we're > removing them as we modify code or write new code. > Good to know. ... >> Ok. I was thinking that we could support the ability to scan by uid/gid >> regardless of whether quota is enabled, but perhaps there's no purpose >> to that if a quota isn't enabled. > > I can't really think of a use case for doing this. Making the API > more expansive in future if someone needs this can be done - it's > removing stuff that is really hard to do. Hence, don't add it if it > is not going to be used immediately. :) > Ok. Brian > Cheers, > > Dave. > _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
