[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.1.10.0808260954040.3363@nehalem.linux-foundation.org>
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2008 09:58:14 -0700 (PDT)
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Tejun Heo <htejun@...il.com>
cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>,
hch@...radead.org,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Eric Van Hensbergen <ericvh@...il.com>,
Ron Minnich <rminnich@...dia.gov>,
v9fs-developer@...ts.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] poll: allow f_op->poll to sleep
On Tue, 26 Aug 2008, Tejun Heo wrote:
>
> This patch converts poll/select to use custom wake up function and use
> separate triggered variable to synchronize against wake up events.
> The only added overhead is an extra function call during wake up and
> negligible.
I don't really see the point.
poll() isn't allowed to sleep for many reasons. Some are technical. But
the most obvious one is that a sleeping "poll()" is totally against the
whole point of polling in the first place!
So is there some big conceptual reason to change how poll() has always
worked?
If you worry about debuggability, then we could just add a
preempt_enable();
..
preempt_disable();
around the poll calls (purely for catching errors) to get a big warning if
somebody tries to call a sleepable function.
Linus
--
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