From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail138.messagelabs.com (mail138.messagelabs.com [216.82.249.35]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 8B6BD6B01FC for ; Sun, 4 Apr 2010 12:03:35 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 4 Apr 2010 20:03:28 +0400 From: Evgeniy Polyakov Subject: Re: why are some low-level MM routines being exported? Message-ID: <20100404160328.GA30540@ioremap.net> References: <1270396784.1814.92.camel@barrios-desktop> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1270396784.1814.92.camel@barrios-desktop> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Minchan Kim Cc: "Robert P. J. Day" , linux-mm@kvack.org, Joern Engel List-ID: On Mon, Apr 05, 2010 at 12:59:44AM +0900, Minchan Kim (minchan.kim@gmail.com) wrote: > > perusing the code in mm/filemap.c and i'm curious as to why routines > > like, for example, add_to_page_cache_lru() are being exported. is it > > really expected that loadable modules might access routines like that > > directly? > > It is added by 18bc0bbd162e3 for pohmelfs and now used by logfs, too. > I didn't noticed that at that time. > With git log, any mm guys didn't add Signed-off-by or Reviewed-by. > > I think it's not good for file system or module to use it directly. > It would make LRU management harder. How come? > Is it really needed? Let's think again. Yes, it is really needed. It is not a some king of low-level mm magic to export, but a useful interface to work with LRU lists instead of copy-paste it into own machinery. -- Evgeniy Polyakov -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org