On Mon, Sep 05, 2005 at 09:32:59AM +0300, Pekka Enberg wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 01, 2005 at 01:35:23PM +0200, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> > > +void gfs2_glock_hold(struct gfs2_glock *gl)
> > > +{
> > > + glock_hold(gl);
> > > +}
> > >
> > > eh why?
>
> On 9/5/05, David Teigland <teigland@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > You removed the comment stating exactly why, see below. If that's not a
> > accepted technique in the kernel, say so and I'll be happy to change it
> > here and elsewhere.
>
> Is there a reason why users of gfs2_glock_hold() cannot use
> glock_hold() directly?
Either set could be trivially removed. It's such an insignificant issue
that I've removed glock_hold and put. For the record,
within glock.c we consistently paired inlined versions of:
glock_hold()
glock_put()
we wanted external versions to be appropriately named so we had:
gfs2_glock_hold()
gfs2_glock_put()
still not sure if that technique is acceptable in this crowd or not.
Dave
--
Linux-cluster@xxxxxxxxxx
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster
