[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1273171863.1642.258.camel@laptop>
Date: Thu, 06 May 2010 20:51:03 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Davide Libenzi <davidel@...ilserver.org>
Cc: Changli Gao <xiaosuo@...il.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Roland Dreier <rolandd@...co.com>,
Stefan Richter <stefanr@...6.in-berlin.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] epoll: use wrapper functions
On Thu, 2010-05-06 at 11:47 -0700, Davide Libenzi wrote:
> Since we already have __add_wait_queue(), __add_wait_queue_tail() and
> __remove_wait_queue() (which all means "locked"), and while I agree in
> having the exclusive-add wrapped into a function, I much better prefer a:
>
> static inline void __add_wait_queue_excl(wait_queue_head_t *head,
> wait_queue_t *new)
> {
> new->flags |= WQ_FLAG_EXCLUSIVE;
> __add_wait_queue(head, new);
> }
>
> The patch you posted introduces a different naming, which leaves all the
> other __*() untouched, and wraps the already one-liner __remove_wait_queue()
> with yet another one-liner.
I concur, I always get confused by the _locked postfix (and its more
typing). Also, it goes against the lock data not code paradigm.
--
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