[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200805221856.23824.rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Date: Thu, 22 May 2008 18:56:23 +1000
From: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
To: Daniel Walker <dwalker@...sta.com>
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 Thursday 22 May 2008 03:04:58 Daniel Walker wrote:
> 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
The patches to change down_trylock to down_try touch a heap of files, which
are also touched in other people's trees. If this patch goes upstream, those
people rewriting that code can use down_try in their rewrite, and I can throw
mine away.
Cheers,
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