From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail202.messagelabs.com (mail202.messagelabs.com [216.82.254.227]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id BFE2F6B01FA for ; Sun, 4 Apr 2010 11:59:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: by gyg4 with SMTP id 4so1674546gyg.14 for ; Sun, 04 Apr 2010 08:59:52 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: why are some low-level MM routines being exported? From: Minchan Kim In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Mon, 05 Apr 2010 00:59:44 +0900 Message-ID: <1270396784.1814.92.camel@barrios-desktop> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: "Robert P. J. Day" Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, Joern Engel , Evgeniy Polyakov List-ID: On Sun, 2010-04-04 at 11:27 -0400, Robert P. J. Day wrote: > perusing the code in mm/filemap.c and i'm curious as to why routines > like, for example, add_to_page_cache_lru() are being exported. is it > really expected that loadable modules might access routines like that > directly? It is added by 18bc0bbd162e3 for pohmelfs and now used by logfs, too. I didn't noticed that at that time. With git log, any mm guys didn't add Signed-off-by or Reviewed-by. I think it's not good for file system or module to use it directly. It would make LRU management harder. Is it really needed? Let's think again. -- Kind regards, Minchan Kim -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org