Re: [2.6 patch] the scheduled find_trylock_page() removal

Adrian Bunk wrote:

This patch contains the scheduled find_trylock_page() removal.

Signed-off-by: Adrian Bunk <[email protected]>

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 <[email protected]>

--
SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.

Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com -

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

---

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: [2.6 patch] the scheduled find_trylock_page() removal
    • From: Christoph Hellwig <[email protected]>

• References:
  • [2.6 patch] the scheduled find_trylock_page() removal
    • From: Adrian Bunk <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: [PATCHSET 1][PATCH 0/6] Filesystem AIO read/write
• Next by Date: Re: SATA problems
• Previous by thread: [2.6 patch] the scheduled find_trylock_page() removal
• Next by thread: Re: [2.6 patch] the scheduled find_trylock_page() removal
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]