On Tue, 8 Mar 2005, Russell King wrote: > On Sun, Mar 06, 2005 at 10:49:12PM +0000, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > I disagree. swapper_state is far too much of an internal detail to be > > exported. I argued that way when page_mapping was changed to use it and > > that's why the architectures moved their helpers out of line. > > Looks like the exported unfortunately got added anyway although we settled > > that discussion. > > Well, since ARM's usage of page_mapping() is out of line
ARM is out of line, again? > (which is where it'll now stay) I think Christoph is correct. Oh, I misunderstood you, sorree ;) > Maybe this is something which should be aired on linux-arch > for the other arch maintainers? I've heard of that, I got the impression we're discouraged from mailing it. This is probably too minor to engage their attention. Currently there is no arch using page_mapping in its header files, presumably they were all forced out of line at that time. I think it's wrong to bump people into rearranging their code to get around a missing export, but if you're happy with the status quo, so be it. I expect Christoph and I would agree that what's really wrong is for page_mapping to be referring to that strange implementation detail swapper_space at all. I'd say the export should remain so long as the reference remains, to avoid post-release surprises like last time; but I've had my say, que sera sera. Hugh - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
