From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christoph Lameter Subject: [ofa-general] Re: EMM: Fixup return value handling of emm_notify() Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2008 12:14:24 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: References: <20080401205531.986291575@sgi.com> <20080401205635.793766935@sgi.com> <20080402064952.GF19189@duo.random> <20080402212515.GS19189@duo.random> <1207219246.8514.817.camel@twins> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1207219246.8514.817.camel@twins> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: general-bounces@lists.openfabrics.org Errors-To: general-bounces@lists.openfabrics.org To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: Nick Piggin , steiner@sgi.com, Andrea Arcangeli , linux-mm@kvack.org, Izik Eidus , Kanoj Sarcar , Roland Dreier , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Avi Kivity , kvm-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, daniel.blueman@quadrics.com, Robin Holt , general@lists.openfabrics.org, Hugh Dickins List-Id: linux-mm.kvack.org On Thu, 3 Apr 2008, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > It seems to me that common code can be shared using functions? No need > to stuff everything into a single function. We have method vectors all > over the kernel, we could do a_ops as a single callback too, but we > dont. > > FWIW I prefer separate methods. Ok. It seems that I already added some new methods which do not use all parameters. So lets switch back to the old scheme for the next release.