From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail144.messagelabs.com (mail144.messagelabs.com [216.82.254.51]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id D07EA6B01FE for ; Sun, 4 Apr 2010 12:17:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: by gxk10 with SMTP id 10so2580349gxk.10 for ; Sun, 04 Apr 2010 09:17:24 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: why are some low-level MM routines being exported? From: Minchan Kim In-Reply-To: <20100404160328.GA30540@ioremap.net> References: <1270396784.1814.92.camel@barrios-desktop> <20100404160328.GA30540@ioremap.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Mon, 05 Apr 2010 01:17:18 +0900 Message-ID: <1270397838.1814.110.camel@barrios-desktop> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Evgeniy Polyakov Cc: "Robert P. J. Day" , linux-mm@kvack.org, Joern Engel List-ID: On Sun, 2010-04-04 at 20:03 +0400, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote: > On Mon, Apr 05, 2010 at 12:59:44AM +0900, Minchan Kim (minchan.kim@gmail.com) 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. > > How come? > > > Is it really needed? Let's think again. > > Yes, it is really needed. It is not a some king of low-level mm magic to > export, but a useful interface to work with LRU lists instead of > copy-paste it into own machinery. > -- 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