[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090131130646.GA3986@elte.hu>
Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2009 14:06:46 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Davide Libenzi <davidel@...ilserver.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [patch 3/7] epoll keyed wakeups - introduce key-aware wakeup
macros
* Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> On Sat, 31 Jan 2009, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > Would be nice to see the kernel image size increase due to this change
> > (which gives a good measure about how much of an issue this is).
>
> Ingo, I don't think you have looked at that header file for a while.
>
> It's already doing that, Davide just changed the names a bit:
>
> #define wake_up_interruptible(x) __wake_up(x, TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE, 1, NULL)
>
> and the extra parameter is already there in the caller.
Yeah, indeed - i should have noticed the absense of new function
prototypes in the patch ... and in any case i shouldnt post at 4am ;)
> (Yeah, Davide did add it to __wake_up_locked and __wake_up_sync, but
> those are really not the common cases).
>
> Sure, we can change those #define's to be actual functions (and perhaps
> not export the low-level __wake_up() functions at all), since it's true
> that it would probably shrink the kernel size, but that is really a
> totally independent issue from the whole epoll wakeups thing.
Yeah. Will have a look at that independently of Davide's patch.
Ingo
--
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