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
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 22 May 2014 11:05:02 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org> To: NeilBrown <neilb@...e.de> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, David Howells <dhowells@...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>, Roland McGrath <roland@...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: > [[ get_maintainer.pl suggested 61 email address for this patch. > I've trimmed that list somewhat. Hope I didn't miss anyone > important... > I'm hoping it will go in through the scheduler tree, but would > particularly like an Acked-by for the fscache parts. Other acks > welcome. > ]] > > 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. this patch fails to build on x86-32 allyesconfigs. Could we keep the old names for a while, and remove them in the next cycle or so? Thanks, Ingo -- 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