[Tux3] Further sync for inode.c
phillips at phunq.net
Fri Nov 21 01:24:08 PST 2008
On Friday 21 November 2008 01:17, OGAWA Hirofumi wrote:
> Daniel Phillips <phillips at phunq.net> writes:
> > On Thursday 20 November 2008 16:24, OGAWA Hirofumi wrote:
> >> > Is there are reason to change tux_path to *tux_path?
> >> We are allocate it by alloc_path(), so it's not array actually now.
> > You can still declare it as an array function parameter, which is
> > good documentation. But it's not very important important. Should
> > I pull now?
> Yes, it is same on parameter completely. Maybe it's just my habit, if
> it's actual array - foo, and it pointer to array - *foo.
> Well, it's not very important. However, I'd like to use one of those,
> because current code has both of those. I care about it.
> If you like foo, I'll change all of those.
I think foo is (a little) better because this structure really is
Tux3 mailing list
Tux3 at tux3.org
More information about the Tux3