Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > + brelse(bh); > > A little fyi: brelse() is rather old-fashioned, and has a usually unneeded > test for non-null bh in it. In situations where we know that the pointer is > valid, let's please use put_bh().
That's what was in the old romfs. I can make the change, though. Hmmm... brelse() isn't quite equivalent to put_bh(), but the difference seems just to be the message you get if you over-release a buffer head - and the resulting refcount on the BH if that happens. > Anyway, I'll assume that dwmw2 will be handling this patch series. I assume so. David _______________________________________________ uClinux-dev mailing list uClinux-dev@uclinux.org http://mailman.uclinux.org/mailman/listinfo/uclinux-dev This message was resent by uclinux-dev@uclinux.org To unsubscribe see: http://mailman.uclinux.org/mailman/options/uclinux-dev
