[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.61.0612071154290.2863@yvahk01.tjqt.qr>
Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2006 11:59:10 +0100 (MET)
From: Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...ux01.gwdg.de>
To: "Josef 'Jeff' Sipek" <jsipek@...sunysb.edu>
cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, torvalds@...l.org, akpm@...l.org,
hch@...radead.org, viro@....linux.org.uk,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, mhalcrow@...ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 29/35] Unionfs: Superblock operations
On Dec 4 2006 07:31, Josef 'Jeff' Sipek wrote:
>+int init_inode_cache(void)
>+{
>+ int err = 0;
>+
>+ unionfs_inode_cachep =
>+ kmem_cache_create("unionfs_inode_cache",
>+ sizeof(struct unionfs_inode_info), 0,
>+ SLAB_RECLAIM_ACCOUNT, init_once, NULL);
>+ if (!unionfs_inode_cachep)
>+ err = -ENOMEM;
>+ return err;
>+}
>+
>+void destroy_inode_cache(void)
>+{
>+ if (unionfs_inode_cachep)
>+ kmem_cache_destroy(unionfs_inode_cachep);
>+}
These function names could possibly clash with same-named functions
elsewhere, because they are not marked static. (This shows when two
features with same function names are compiled as y.) I grepped
through a 2.6.18 tree with unionfs, and unionfs was the only one
having this function name at this time. I would suggest prefixing it
somehow.
-`J'
--
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists