[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090517211852.718059c5@infradead.org>
Date: Sun, 17 May 2009 21:18:52 -0700
From: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
To: Ming Lei <tom.leiming@...il.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kernel/async.c:introduce async_schedule*_atomic
On Mon, 18 May 2009 09:55:14 +0800
Ming Lei <tom.leiming@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> > in cases where you don't want to fail while in the atomic portion,
> > but can fail better earlier.
>
> If we do this way, the type of async_schedule*() and
> async_schedule*_inatomic() is different, and callers will be messed
> with them, especially for _inatomic().
I'm not so much proposing the external "simple API" to have this,
but the primitive should have it, so that we can provide a
__async_schedule_inatomic() which does have the option..
>
> BTW: I have submited new version of this patches, would you mind
> giving a review?
I gave comments on various threads from my inbox, but I cannot rule out
having missed one... If you think I missed one, could you send me a
private email with the latest patches you want reviewed (even if it's a
forward from what you sent earlier)?
I'm happy to see these enhancements btw...
--
Arjan van de Ven Intel Open Source Technology Centre
For development, discussion and tips for power savings,
visit http://www.lesswatts.org
--
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