Re: [PATCH 5/5][NFS] Cleanup explicit check for mandatory locks

2007-09-18 Thread Trond Myklebust
On Tue, 2007-09-18 at 10:20 +0400, Pavel Emelyanov wrote: > Trond Myklebust wrote: > > On Mon, 2007-09-17 at 11:57 +0400, Pavel Emelyanov wrote: > >> The __mandatory_lock(inode) macro makes the same check, but > >> makes the code more readable. > > > > Could we please avoid using underscores in

Re: [PATCH 5/5][NFS] Cleanup explicit check for mandatory locks

2007-09-18 Thread Pavel Emelyanov
Trond Myklebust wrote: > On Mon, 2007-09-17 at 11:57 +0400, Pavel Emelyanov wrote: >> The __mandatory_lock(inode) macro makes the same check, but >> makes the code more readable. > > Could we please avoid using underscores in macros. Also, why are we > breaking the usual convention of

Re: [PATCH 5/5][NFS] Cleanup explicit check for mandatory locks

2007-09-18 Thread Pavel Emelyanov
Trond Myklebust wrote: On Mon, 2007-09-17 at 11:57 +0400, Pavel Emelyanov wrote: The __mandatory_lock(inode) macro makes the same check, but makes the code more readable. Could we please avoid using underscores in macros. Also, why are we breaking the usual convention of capitalising macro

Re: [PATCH 5/5][NFS] Cleanup explicit check for mandatory locks

2007-09-18 Thread Trond Myklebust
On Tue, 2007-09-18 at 10:20 +0400, Pavel Emelyanov wrote: Trond Myklebust wrote: On Mon, 2007-09-17 at 11:57 +0400, Pavel Emelyanov wrote: The __mandatory_lock(inode) macro makes the same check, but makes the code more readable. Could we please avoid using underscores in macros. Also,

Re: [PATCH 5/5][NFS] Cleanup explicit check for mandatory locks

2007-09-17 Thread Trond Myklebust
On Mon, 2007-09-17 at 11:57 +0400, Pavel Emelyanov wrote: > The __mandatory_lock(inode) macro makes the same check, but > makes the code more readable. Could we please avoid using underscores in macros. Also, why are we breaking the usual convention of capitalising macro names? Cheers Trond >

[PATCH 5/5][NFS] Cleanup explicit check for mandatory locks

2007-09-17 Thread Pavel Emelyanov
The __mandatory_lock(inode) macro makes the same check, but makes the code more readable. Signed-off-by: Pavel Emelyanov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: Trond Myklebust <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --- fs/nfs/file.c |3 +-- 1 files changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/fs/nfs/file.c

[PATCH 5/5][NFS] Cleanup explicit check for mandatory locks

2007-09-17 Thread Pavel Emelyanov
The __mandatory_lock(inode) macro makes the same check, but makes the code more readable. Signed-off-by: Pavel Emelyanov [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Trond Myklebust [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- fs/nfs/file.c |3 +-- 1 files changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/fs/nfs/file.c

Re: [PATCH 5/5][NFS] Cleanup explicit check for mandatory locks

2007-09-17 Thread Trond Myklebust
On Mon, 2007-09-17 at 11:57 +0400, Pavel Emelyanov wrote: The __mandatory_lock(inode) macro makes the same check, but makes the code more readable. Could we please avoid using underscores in macros. Also, why are we breaking the usual convention of capitalising macro names? Cheers Trond