Re: [PATCH] generic_file_write_nolock cleanup

On Mon, 30 Jan 2006, Badari Pulavarty wrote:
> 
> generic_file_write_nolock() and __generic_file_write_nolock() seems
> to be doing exactly same thing. Why do we have 2 of these ? 
> Can we kill __generic_file_write_nolock() ?

Doesn't generic_file_write_nolock() call generic_file_aio_write_nolock(),
but __generic_file_write_nolock() call __generic_file_aio_write_nolock()?
With the first doing some syncing which the __second doesn't do?

Lovely names in mm/filemap.c, aren't they?

Hugh
-
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: [PATCH] generic_file_write_nolock cleanup
    • From: Badari Pulavarty <[email protected]>

• References:
  • [PATCH] generic_file_write_nolock cleanup
    • From: Badari Pulavarty <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: [parisc-linux] Re: [PATCH 3/6] C-language equivalents of include/asm-*/bitops.h
• Next by Date: [2.6 patch] drivers/net/e1000/: proper prototypes
• Previous by thread: [PATCH] generic_file_write_nolock cleanup
• Next by thread: Re: [PATCH] generic_file_write_nolock cleanup
• 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]