[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Mon, 5 May 2008 16:09:12 +1000
From: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, gregkh@...e.de, kaos@....com,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@....ibm.com>, rolandd@...co.com,
"Brian S. Julin" <bri@...yx.com>, Martin Diehl <info@...ehl.de>,
mokuno@...sony.co.jp, aacraid@...ptec.com, mfasheh@...e.com,
wim@...ana.be, xfs@....sgi.com, reiserfs-devel@...r.kernel.org,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] Replace down_trylock() with down_try(), reverse return values.
On Monday 05 May 2008 15:58:23 Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, May 05, 2008 at 01:56:35AM +0000, Rusty Russell wrote:
> > down_trylock() returns 1 on failure, 0 on success. This differs from
> > spin_trylock(), mutex_trylock() and common sense. Or as ocfs2 put it
> > "kernel 1, world 0".
> >
> > Rename it to down_try() (which makes more sense anyway), and reverse
> > it. Fortunately there aren't a huge number of callers left.
>
> Given that people are actively trying to kill struct semaphore I don't
> think doing a big search and rename is a good idea right now.
If it goes away before the 2.6.27 merge window, great. But I don't see that
happening, so let's clean up this horror. I cc'd all the people effected in
the hope that it will prod some of them towards mutexes anyway.
> (And I also really hate the name down_try, but when it goes away that's
> rather void and we can spare the discussion)
Ideas? down() is pretty bad, down_try() matches it.
Thanks,
Rusty.
--
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