lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Mar]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [Tux3] Tux3 report: Tux3 Git tree available
Date
On Thursday 12 March 2009, OGAWA Hirofumi wrote:
> Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> writes:
>
> > On Fri, 13 Mar 2009 01:18:29 +0900
> > OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@mail.parknet.co.jp> wrote:
> >
> >> Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> writes:
> >>
> >> > - When 'bh' is known to be non-NULL, use put_bh() rather than brelse().
> >>
> >> It sounds strange. Almost all bh is non-NULL. This means we are going to
> >> replace almost all brelse() by put_bh()?
> >>
> >
> > Well.. you can make up your own mind about this. If you see benefit
> > in the NULL-checking and extra debugging which brelse() provides then
> > continue to use brelse().
>
> I thought someone started to convert it. Ok, personally, I think
> NULL-check is just not needed always, and if it is needed, check it
> explicitly.

I checked in a patch last week to convert all the brelses to "blockput"
(note how close the spelling is to Nick's block_put, an unsurprising
accident). This should mean a little less work when the time comes to
try out the block handles idea, and it surely doesn't hurt anything.

Regards,

Daniel


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-03-15 05:03    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site