From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Francis Moreau" Subject: page cache KPI Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2008 09:18:41 +0200 Message-ID: <38b2ab8a0807210018r16839693p8cf47e6ea0f08d4e@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Received: from rv-out-0506.google.com ([209.85.198.238]:30906 "EHLO rv-out-0506.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752501AbYGUHSl (ORCPT ); Mon, 21 Jul 2008 03:18:41 -0400 Received: by rv-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id k40so1248885rvb.1 for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 00:18:41 -0700 (PDT) Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Hello, Kernel core code is usually great and well designed IMHO. But here I find the page cache KPI really incosistent in its routine names. For example, here are different helpers I could find: page_cache_get() page_cache_release() page_cache_alloc() find_get_page() find_lock_page() grab_cache_page() grab_cache_page_nowait() read_cache_page_async() read_cache_page() add_to_page_cache() remove_from_page_cache() lock_page() wait_on_page_writeback() ... Do these inconsistencies exist for historical reasons or am I missing something ? If I am right, wouldn't it better for them to start with page_cache_ or something similar. Thanks -- Francis