[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090518132908.3cf40630@gondolin>
Date: Mon, 18 May 2009 13:29:08 +0200
From: Cornelia Huck <cornelia.huck@...ibm.com>
To: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
Cc: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Ming Lei <tom.leiming@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kernel/async.c:introduce async_schedule*_atomic
On Sun, 17 May 2009 13:59:40 -0700,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 13 May 2009 09:47:28 +0200
> Cornelia Huck <cornelia.huck@...ibm.com> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 13 May 2009 03:20:13 +0200,
> > Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 08:28:15AM +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> >
> > > > Also we still allow async_schedule*() to run a job synchronously
> > > > if out of memory
> > > > or other failure. This can keep consistency with before.
> > >
> > >
> > > Yes, but also most of the current users of async_schedule() could
> > > call it with GFP_KERNEL. For now it's not an issue because it is
> > > not widely used, but who knows how that will evolve...
> >
> > Well, if we want to change the interface, now would be a good time
> > since there are still few callers.
>
> I would prefer it that if we make a more complex interface, we keep the
> current simple interface as a wrapper, so that the simple case can
> remain simple.
Of course. I was just thinking about changing the semantics of
async_schedule() to doing GFP_KERNEL allocation - now it's still easy
to audit all callers.
--
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