Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 30 Jan 2006 17:20:28 +0000 (GMT) | From | Hugh Dickins <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] generic_file_write_nolock cleanup |
| |
On Mon, 30 Jan 2006, Badari Pulavarty wrote: > > generic_file_write_nolock() and __generic_file_write_nolock() seems > to be doing exactly same thing. Why do we have 2 of these ? > Can we kill __generic_file_write_nolock() ?
Doesn't generic_file_write_nolock() call generic_file_aio_write_nolock(), but __generic_file_write_nolock() call __generic_file_aio_write_nolock()? With the first doing some syncing which the __second doesn't do?
Lovely names in mm/filemap.c, aren't they?
Hugh - 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/
| |