From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Pekka Enberg Subject: Re: GFS, what's remaining Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2005 11:00:51 +0300 Message-ID: <84144f02050905010066bc516d@mail.gmail.com> References: <20050901104620.GA22482@redhat.com> <1125574523.5025.10.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> <20050905054348.GC11337@redhat.com> <84144f02050904233274d45230@mail.gmail.com> <20050905075528.GB17607@redhat.com> Reply-To: linux clustering Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, akpm@osdl.org, linux-cluster@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Arjan van de Ven Return-path: To: David Teigland In-Reply-To: <20050905075528.GB17607@redhat.com> Content-Disposition: inline List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: linux-cluster-bounces@redhat.com Errors-To: linux-cluster-bounces@redhat.com List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On 9/5/05, David Teigland wrote: > Either set could be trivially removed. It's such an insignificant issu= e > that I've removed glock_hold and put. For the record, >=20 > within glock.c we consistently paired inlined versions of: > glock_hold() > glock_put() >=20 > we wanted external versions to be appropriately named so we had: > gfs2_glock_hold() > gfs2_glock_put() >=20 > still not sure if that technique is acceptable in this crowd or not. You still didn't answer my question why you needed two versions, though. AFAIK you didn't which makes the other one an redundant wrapper which are discouraged in kernel code. Pekka