This just forwards the internal LFS_I_DIRTY flag to the user via the
lfsr_tinfo flags field.
Benefits of this approach:
- Gives the user more flexibility on what to do if the filesystem is
modified, maybe you want to keep traversing depending on some other
logic.
- Can eventually add other flags to tinfo.flags, such as
LFS_I_COMPACTED, LFS_I_REPAIRED, LFS_I_INCONSISTENT, etc.
- Avoids confusion around the very different behaviors of LFS_O_EXCL and
LFS_T_EXCL.
I tried to come up with a better name (maybe LFS_T_WATCH?) but it was
a bit of a struggle... Switching to a flags approach sidesteps the
issue.
- Can drop the LFS_ERR_BUSY error code for now.
Code changes were fairly insignificant:
code stack
before: 35244 2680
after: 35224 (-0.1%) 2680 (+0.0%)
The only concern is that the tests highlighted it's possible for our
flag scheme to miss mutation if it happens after/during the last set of
blocks... Not sure how to handle this yet...
Christopher Haster
23c82bd7e5