Keir Fraser wrote:
> It has no other users right now and get_vm_area_sync() would be a
> better-named and more generically useful function than alloc_vm_area().
I'm thinking "reserve" might be a better term; "get" generally has the
suggestion of a refcount.
> get_vm_area_sync(), partnered with existing remove_vm_area(), just seems
> much smaller and neater than adding four new functions with a more complex
> usage: alloc_vm_area, {lock,unlock}_vm_area, and free_vm_area. Maybe keeping
> free_vm_area() too makes sense as its interface is more neatly symmetrical
> to that of get_vm_area().
I've already killed the lock/unlock functions. I'll come up with
something for the get/allocate/reserve and free functions.
J
