Re: [PATCH] generic_file_write_nolock cleanup

[Badari Pulavarty <pbadari@us.ibm.com>]

On Mon, 2006-01-30 at 17:20 +0000, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> 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?

Sigh !! I see it now. It was my version which was exactly equal (I was
doing some cleanup). :(

Please ignore my patch.

Thanks,
Badari

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