[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <30874.1399997326@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
Date: Tue, 13 May 2014 17:08:46 +0100
From: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
To: NeilBrown <neilb@...e.de>
Cc: dhowells@...hat.com, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Steven Whitehouse <swhiteho@...hat.com>, dm-devel@...hat.com,
Chris Mason <clm@...com>, Josef Bacik <jbacik@...com>,
Steve French <sfrench@...ba.org>,
"Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@...marydata.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] SCHED: remove proliferation of wait_on_bit action functions.
NeilBrown <neilb@...e.de> wrote:
> The current "wait_on_bit" interface requires an 'action' function
> to be provided which does the actual waiting.
> There are over 20 such functions, many of them identical.
> Most cases can be satisfied by one of just two functions, one
> which uses io_schedule() and one which just uses schedule().
>
> So:
> Rename wait_on_bit and wait_on_bit_lock to
> wait_on_bit_action and wait_on_bit_lock_action
> to make it explicit that they need an action function.
>
> Introduce new wait_on_bit{,_lock} and wait_on_bit{,_lock}_io
> which are *not* given an action function but implicitly use
> a standard one.
> The decision to error-out if a signal is pending is now made
> based on the 'mode' argument rather than being encoded in the action
> function.
Yay! About time! This is something I've wanted to do for ages, but never
quite got around to.
Acked-by: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
--
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