On 9/5/05, David Teigland <teigland@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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.
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
--
Linux-cluster@xxxxxxxxxx
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster
