[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20100522085421.1E72.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date: Sat, 22 May 2010 09:04:30 +0900 (JST)
From: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com,
Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>,
"Li, Shaohua" <shaohua.li@...el.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tmpfs: Insert tmpfs cache pages to inactive list at first
> > -static inline void lru_cache_add_active_anon(struct page *page)
> > -{
> > - __lru_cache_add(page, LRU_ACTIVE_ANON);
> > -}
> > -
> > static inline void lru_cache_add_file(struct page *page)
> > {
> > __lru_cache_add(page, LRU_INACTIVE_FILE);
> > }
> >
> > -static inline void lru_cache_add_active_file(struct page *page)
> > -{
> > - __lru_cache_add(page, LRU_ACTIVE_FILE);
> > -}
>
> Did you intend to remove these two functions?
This is for applying Hannes's commnet.
> They do appear to be unused now, but they still make sense and might be
> used in the future, perhaps.
Personally, I don't like the strategy that anyone without me might
use this function in the future. because It often never come.
> It's OK to remove them, but I'm wondering
> if it was deliberately included in this patch?
Makes sense.
OK, please drop current patch at once. I'll post V2.
--
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