[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20201209155148.GA5552@wp.pl>
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2020 16:51:48 +0100
From: Stanislaw Gruszka <stf_xl@...pl>
To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>,
Michal Kubecek <mkubecek@...e.cz>,
Justin Forbes <jmforbes@...uxtx.org>,
bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>, Alex Shi <alex.shi@...ux.alibaba.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Souptick Joarder <jrdr.linux@...il.com>,
Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Josef Bacik <josef@...icpanda.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/filemap: add static for function
__add_to_page_cache_locked
On Wed, Dec 09, 2020 at 03:08:26PM +0000, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 09, 2020 at 03:46:28PM +0100, Stanislaw Gruszka wrote:
> > At this point of release cycle we should probably go with revert,
> > but I think the main problem is that BPF and ERROR_INJECTION use
> > function that is not intended to be used externally. For external users
> > add_to_page_cache_lru() and add_to_page_cache_locked() are exported
> > and I think those should be used (see the patch below).
>
> FWIW, I intend to do some consolidation/renaming in this area. I
> trust that will not be a problem?
If it does not break anything, it will be not a problem ;-)
It's possible that __add_to_page_cache_locked() can be a global symbol
with add_to_page_cache_lru() + add_to_page_cache_locked() being just
static/inline wrappers around it.
Stanislaw
Powered by blists - more mailing lists