* Re: [2.6 patch] the scheduled find_trylock_page() removal
[not found] <20070102215735.GD20714@stusta.de>
@ 2007-01-04 4:53 ` Nick Piggin
2007-01-04 15:52 ` Christoph Hellwig
0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread
From: Nick Piggin @ 2007-01-04 4:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Adrian Bunk; +Cc: Nick Piggin, linux-kernel, Linux Memory Management
Adrian Bunk wrote:
> This patch contains the scheduled find_trylock_page() removal.
>
> Signed-off-by: Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de>
I guess I don't have a problem with this going into -mm and making its way
upstream sometime after the next release.
I would normally say it is OK to stay for another year because it is so
unintrusive, but I don't like the fact it doesn't give one an explicit ref
on the page -- it could be misused slightly more easily than find_lock_page
or find_get_page.
Anyone object? Otherwise:
Acked-by: Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de>
--
SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.
Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com
--
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: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
* Re: [2.6 patch] the scheduled find_trylock_page() removal
2007-01-04 4:53 ` [2.6 patch] the scheduled find_trylock_page() removal Nick Piggin
@ 2007-01-04 15:52 ` Christoph Hellwig
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: Christoph Hellwig @ 2007-01-04 15:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Nick Piggin
Cc: Adrian Bunk, Nick Piggin, linux-kernel, Linux Memory Management
On Thu, Jan 04, 2007 at 03:53:07PM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> Adrian Bunk wrote:
> >This patch contains the scheduled find_trylock_page() removal.
> >
> >Signed-off-by: Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de>
>
> I guess I don't have a problem with this going into -mm and making its way
> upstream sometime after the next release.
>
> I would normally say it is OK to stay for another year because it is so
> unintrusive, but I don't like the fact it doesn't give one an explicit ref
> on the page -- it could be misused slightly more easily than find_lock_page
> or find_get_page.
>
> Anyone object? Otherwise:
Just kill it. There's absolutely no point in keeping dead code around.
It's bad enough we keep such things around for half a year.
--
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: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2007-01-04 15:52 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
[not found] <20070102215735.GD20714@stusta.de>
2007-01-04 4:53 ` [2.6 patch] the scheduled find_trylock_page() removal Nick Piggin
2007-01-04 15:52 ` Christoph Hellwig
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox