* 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