Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] generic_file_write_nolock cleanup | From | Badari Pulavarty <> | Date | Mon, 30 Jan 2006 10:07:27 -0800 |
| |
On Mon, 2006-01-30 at 17:20 +0000, Hugh Dickins wrote: > 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?
Sigh !! I see it now. It was my version which was exactly equal (I was doing some cleanup). :(
Please ignore my patch.
Thanks, Badari
- 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/
| |