Hello, On Tue, Aug 04, 2009 at 12:30:30AM +0200, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > On Mon, Aug 03, 2009 at 09:19:17PM +0300, Sergiu Ivanov wrote: > > On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 08:08:20AM +0200, olafbuddenha...@gmx.net wrote: > > > On Sun, Jul 12, 2009 at 10:50:07PM +0300, Sergiu Ivanov wrote: > > > > On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 03:56:02AM +0200, olafbuddenha...@gmx.net wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Jul 08, 2009 at 10:30:41PM +0300, Sergiu Ivanov wrote: > > > So there is no other way to associate the two lists? This is ugly > > > indeed. In this case, I think it would be better not to use the iterator > > > at all -- what you did here looks really hackish, and it breaks the > > > iterator paradigm anyways... > > > > Yeah, true, it breaks the paradigm. However, I actually borrowed this > > piece of code from node_init_root (node.c), so this is the style used > > in unionfs. Should I forget about consistency in this case, what do > > you think? > > Go for consistency, and add something like ``TODO: this should be > rewritten like this: ..., because ...''. [...]
OK. I'll do that. > So. Sergiu, if you need specific review of some parts of this patch (or > any other patches), then please say so, otherwise please get it > installed. I assume that you can confirm in some way (testing, staring > at the code, ...) that it does the correct thing. And should there be > any breakage, and we discover it later on, we'll repair it later on. We > can't address or even fix all potential design or implementation > odditites of the unionfs code in this single discussion thread. OK. I'll install the patch today, after having added the ``TODO:...'' comment. > I hope that these words of mine aren't seen as an affront against the > lots of time that you people invest in discussing patches, writing > emails, etc. -- which is absolutely not my intention! -- but, yeah, let's > get something DONE! :-) OK :-) Regards, scolobb
