[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200805211458.58020.rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Date: Wed, 21 May 2008 14:58:57 +1000
From: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
wim@...ana.be, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 18/57] iTCO: unlocked_ioctl, coding style and cleanup
On Wednesday 21 May 2008 14:36:54 Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 21 May 2008 14:26:15 +1000 Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
wrote:
> > > decent-sized smashup during the merge window. There are lessons
> > > here...
> >
> > I've been pulling out s/down_trylock/down_nowait/ patches which effect
> > others' changes. Those patches get moved to the end of my queue, and
> > I'll revisit them before an actual merge with Linus.
> >
> > As down_trylock still works (but marked deprecated) with my patches,
> > they're fine to drop. Just tell me which ones...
>
> Well, a simple patch which does
>
> /*
> * comment goes here
> */
> static inline int __must_check down_nowait(struct semaphore *sem)
> {
> return !down_trylock(sem);
> }
>
> and which does not deprecate down_trylock() could go into mainline
> right now
Sure, in this case it's probably worth it.
> , (assuming that the overall concept doesn't get shot down in
> review - did it get reviewed?)
Well, it got some commentry on lkml, mainly from Christoph H. He was the one
who came up with "down_nowait" vs the original "down_try".
> Then you can start trickling stuff out to people straight away.
OK, I'll send a patch now.
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