[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4928C891.80405@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2008 12:05:53 +0900
From: Tejun Heo <htejun@...il.com>
To: Davide Libenzi <davidel@...ilserver.org>
CC: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>,
Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>, arjan@...ux.intel.com,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
hch@...radead.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
rminnich@...dia.gov, ericvh@...il.com,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: poll: allow f_op->poll to sleep, take #3
Davide Libenzi wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Nov 2008, Tejun Heo wrote:
>
>> +static int pollwake(wait_queue_t *wait, unsigned mode, int sync, void *key)
>> +{
>> + struct poll_wqueues *pwq = wait->private;
>> + DECLARE_WAITQUEUE(dummy_wait, pwq->polling_task);
>> +
>> + set_mb(pwq->triggered, 1);
>> +
>> + /* perform the default wake up operation */
>> + return default_wake_function(&dummy_wait, mode, sync, key);
>> +}
>
> Wouldn't it be nicer to un-static try_to_wake_up() (or a wrapper) instead
> of setting up a fake wait queue just to use default_wake_function(), just
> to wake up a task?
I thought try_to_wake_up() was made static to avoid abuse but then again
creating dummy waitqueue is an obvious abuse of waitqueue. What do
other people think? I'll be happy to use try_to_wake_up() directly.
Thanks.
--
tejun
--
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