Now we have ro_unmap_safe() which sorta implies that there
is a non-safe unmap? Why not just keep it ro_umap?
Er, I would find that confusing too.
How about name it ro_unmap_slow(), but it's for asynchronous
cases too.
Heh, if a future nfs-rdma developer sees ro_unmap_slow() I assume his
first action is to grep ro_unmap_fast...
Anyway, it's not critical, your call..
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
