[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1211389499.18130.53.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Wed, 21 May 2008 10:04:58 -0700
From: Daniel Walker <dwalker@...sta.com>
To: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Introduce down_nowait()
On Wed, 2008-05-21 at 17:56 +1000, Rusty Russell wrote:
> Subject: [PATCH] Introduce down_try()
>
> I planned on removing the much-disliked down_trylock() (with its
> backwards return codes) in 2.6.27, but it's creating something of a
> logjam with other patches in -mm and linux-next.
>
> Andrew suggested introducing "down_try" as a wrapper now, to make
> the transition easier.
I must be missing something critical, but what's the logjam this is
causing?
Daniel
--
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