Re: [Final call for testers][PATCH] superblock handling changes (2.4.6-pre3)

[Matthew Wilcox]

On Fri, Jun 15, 2001 at 12:34:41PM -0400, Alexander Viro wrote:
> Aside of the missing ->s_count++ - no arguments.

My mistake.

> > > +	list_add (&s->s_list, super_blocks.prev);
> > 
> > I'd use list_add_tail(&s->s_list, super_blocks);
> 
> Umm... Why? I've no problems with either variant, but I really see no
> clear win (or loss) in list_add_tail here. If there is some code that
> relies on the order in that list it's badly broken - remember, we used
> to reuse unmounted superblocks, so order might be almost arbitrary.

It does exactly the same thing -- inserting at the end of the list --
just slightly more obvious what its doing.

-- 
Revolutions do not require corporate support.