On Sun, Jan 03, 2016 at 12:41:47PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> I like how it removes "put_link()" as a callback, but at the same time
> I think it's even more abstract than the cookie was.
>
> The main worry I have is that the naming is generic, but there's only
> a single very specialized use
On Sun, Jan 3, 2016 at 12:21 PM, Al Viro wrote:
>
> Just to make sure - that does include 13/13, presumably?
Ugh, no, I had set that aside and then forgot all about it.
I'm not sure about 13/13. I'm ok with it, but I'm not sure it's any
less confusing than the cookie was.
I like how it removes
On Sun, Jan 03, 2016 at 11:53:21AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 10:36 PM, Al Viro wrote:
> > In cases when we need to pin the symlink body in some manner, we
> > need to undo whatever we'd done once the caller is done with the body.
> > That went through several v
On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 10:36 PM, Al Viro wrote:
> In cases when we need to pin the symlink body in some manner, we
> need to undo whatever we'd done once the caller is done with the body.
> That went through several variants, the latest (in -next right now) being
> "have non-NULL ->put_li
4 matches
Mail list logo
