linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] SCHED: allow wait_on_bit_action functions to support a timeout.

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20140501080430.GL11096@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:	Thu, 1 May 2014 10:04:30 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	NeilBrown <neilb@...e.de>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@...marydata.com>,
	"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] SCHED: allow wait_on_bit_action functions to support a
 timeout.

On Thu, May 01, 2014 at 12:41:43PM +1000, NeilBrown wrote:
> diff --git a/include/linux/wait.h b/include/linux/wait.h
> index 438dc6044587..162cbcde9dae 100644
> --- a/include/linux/wait.h
> +++ b/include/linux/wait.h
> @@ -25,6 +25,7 @@ struct wait_bit_key {
>  	void			*flags;
>  	int			bit_nr;
>  #define WAIT_ATOMIC_T_BIT_NR	-1
> +	unsigned long		private;
>  };
>  
>  struct wait_bit_queue {
> @@ -147,12 +148,12 @@ void __wake_up_sync_key(wait_queue_head_t *q, unsigned int mode, int nr, void *k
>  void __wake_up_locked(wait_queue_head_t *q, unsigned int mode, int nr);
>  void __wake_up_sync(wait_queue_head_t *q, unsigned int mode, int nr);
>  void __wake_up_bit(wait_queue_head_t *, void *, int);
> -int __wait_on_bit(wait_queue_head_t *, struct wait_bit_queue *, int (*)(void *), unsigned);
> -int __wait_on_bit_lock(wait_queue_head_t *, struct wait_bit_queue *, int (*)(void *), unsigned);
> +int __wait_on_bit(wait_queue_head_t *, struct wait_bit_queue *, int (*)(struct wait_bit_key *), unsigned);
> +int __wait_on_bit_lock(wait_queue_head_t *, struct wait_bit_queue *, int (*)(struct wait_bit_key *), unsigned);


Would something like:

typedef int (*wait_bit_action_f)(struct wait_bit_key *);

make sense?
--
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/