On Sat, Feb 03, 2007 at 08:54:50AM +0000, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > Is there any reason we want to have both variants? I think vfs_lock_file > should simple get the last argument and we shouldn't have a separate > vfs_lock_file_conf (which btw doesn't have an exactly descriptive name). > The also allows you to kill __posix_lock_file_conf and only keep a single > posix_lock_file routines that gets the argument aswell. That sounds reasonable. > And btw, in case you ask why I demand all these addition cleanuos: > you're touching an already more than messy codebase and make it more > complex, that needs some cleanups to counterbalance :) I find locks.c really hard to read, so I'm happy for any suggestions for cleanups.... --b. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
