> From: Nitin Gupta [mailto:ngupta@xxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Friday, July 23, 2010 9:05 AM > To: Dan Magenheimer > Cc: Christoph Hellwig; akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Chris Mason; > viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; adilger@xxxxxxx; tytso@xxxxxxx; > mfasheh@xxxxxxxx; Joel Becker; matthew@xxxxxx; linux- > btrfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux- > fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-ext4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; ocfs2- > devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-mm@xxxxxxxxx; jeremy@xxxxxxxx; > JBeulich@xxxxxxxxxx; Kurt Hackel; npiggin@xxxxxxx; Dave Mccracken; > riel@xxxxxxxxxx; avi@xxxxxxxxxx; Konrad Wilk > Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 0/8] Cleancache: overview > > On 07/23/2010 08:14 PM, Dan Magenheimer wrote: > >> From: Christoph Hellwig [mailto:hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] > > > >> Also making the ops vector global is just a bad idea. > >> There is nothing making this sort of caching inherently global. > > > > I'm not sure I understand your point, but two very different > > users of cleancache have been provided, and more will be > > discussed at the MM summit next month. > > > > Do you have a suggestion on how to avoid a global ops > > vector while still serving the needs of both existing > > users? > > Maybe introduce cleancache_register(struct cleancache_ops *ops)? > This will allow making cleancache_ops non-global. No value add > but maybe that's cleaner? Oh, OK, that seems reasonable. Dan -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href