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 9/5/05, David Teigland <teigland@redhat.com> wrote:
> 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.

You still didn't answer my question why you needed two versions,
though. AFAIK you didn't which makes the other one an redundant
wrapper which are discouraged in kernel code.

Pekka
-
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 10:03    [W:0.142 / U:3.108 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site