On Tue, Dec 18, 2007 at 09:59:22PM +, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> add_to_swap_cache doesn't amount to much: merge it into its sole caller
> read_swap_cache_async. But we'll be needing to call __add_to_swap_cache
> from shmem.c, so promote it to the new add_to_swap_cache. Both were
> static, so
add_to_swap_cache doesn't amount to much: merge it into its sole caller
read_swap_cache_async. But we'll be needing to call __add_to_swap_cache
from shmem.c, so promote it to the new add_to_swap_cache. Both were
static, so there's no interface confusion to worry about.
And lose that
add_to_swap_cache doesn't amount to much: merge it into its sole caller
read_swap_cache_async. But we'll be needing to call __add_to_swap_cache
from shmem.c, so promote it to the new add_to_swap_cache. Both were
static, so there's no interface confusion to worry about.
And lose that
On Tue, Dec 18, 2007 at 09:59:22PM +, Hugh Dickins wrote:
add_to_swap_cache doesn't amount to much: merge it into its sole caller
read_swap_cache_async. But we'll be needing to call __add_to_swap_cache
from shmem.c, so promote it to the new add_to_swap_cache. Both were
static, so there's
4 matches
Mail list logo
