[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200903142058.58124.phillips@phunq.net>
Date: Sat, 14 Mar 2009 20:58:57 -0700
From: Daniel Phillips <phillips@...nq.net>
To: OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@...l.parknet.co.jp>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, tux3@...3.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Tux3] Tux3 report: Tux3 Git tree available
On Thursday 12 March 2009, OGAWA Hirofumi wrote:
> Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> writes:
>
> > On Fri, 13 Mar 2009 01:18:29 +0900
> > OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@...l.parknet.co.jp> wrote:
> >
> >> Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> writes:
> >>
> >> > - When 'bh' is known to be non-NULL, use put_bh() rather than brelse().
> >>
> >> It sounds strange. Almost all bh is non-NULL. This means we are going to
> >> replace almost all brelse() by put_bh()?
> >>
> >
> > Well.. you can make up your own mind about this. If you see benefit
> > in the NULL-checking and extra debugging which brelse() provides then
> > continue to use brelse().
>
> I thought someone started to convert it. Ok, personally, I think
> NULL-check is just not needed always, and if it is needed, check it
> explicitly.
I checked in a patch last week to convert all the brelses to "blockput"
(note how close the spelling is to Nick's block_put, an unsurprising
accident). This should mean a little less work when the time comes to
try out the block handles idea, and it surely doesn't hurt anything.
Regards,
Daniel
--
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