From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]) by canuck.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.63 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1HKCMF-0007ZQ-CT for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Thu, 22 Feb 2007 06:43:33 -0500 From: David Howells In-Reply-To: <20070221163839.b4f5e3b5.akpm@linux-foundation.org> References: <20070221163839.b4f5e3b5.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20070220195049.26186.69393.stgit@warthog.cambridge.redhat.com> <20070220195106.26186.41931.stgit@warthog.cambridge.redhat.com> To: Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] NOMMU: Make it possible for RomFS to use MTD devices directly Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 11:43:00 +0000 Message-ID: <32148.1172144580@redhat.com> Sender: dhowells@redhat.com Cc: dwmw2@infradead.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, uclinux-dev@uclinux.org List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Andrew Morton wrote: > > + brelse(bh); > > A little fyi: brelse() is rather old-fashioned, and has a usually unneeded > test for non-null bh in it. In situations where we know that the pointer is > valid, let's please use put_bh(). That's what was in the old romfs. I can make the change, though. Hmmm... brelse() isn't quite equivalent to put_bh(), but the difference seems just to be the message you get if you over-release a buffer head - and the resulting refcount on the BH if that happens. > Anyway, I'll assume that dwmw2 will be handling this patch series. I assume so. David