lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2005]   [Sep]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: GFS, what's remaining
    On Mon, Sep 05, 2005 at 09:32:59AM +0300, Pekka Enberg wrote:
    > On Thu, Sep 01, 2005 at 01:35:23PM +0200, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
    > > > +void gfs2_glock_hold(struct gfs2_glock *gl)
    > > > +{
    > > > + glock_hold(gl);
    > > > +}
    > > >
    > > > eh why?
    >
    > On 9/5/05, David Teigland <teigland@redhat.com> wrote:
    > > You removed the comment stating exactly why, see below. If that's not a
    > > accepted technique in the kernel, say so and I'll be happy to change it
    > > here and elsewhere.
    >
    > Is there a reason why users of gfs2_glock_hold() cannot use
    > glock_hold() directly?

    Either set could be trivially removed. It's such an insignificant issue
    that I've removed glock_hold and put. For the record,

    within glock.c we consistently paired inlined versions of:
    glock_hold()
    glock_put()

    we wanted external versions to be appropriately named so we had:
    gfs2_glock_hold()
    gfs2_glock_put()

    still not sure if that technique is acceptable in this crowd or not.
    Dave

    -
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-09-05 09:53    [W:0.071 / U:0.592 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site