linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] SCHED: remove proliferation of wait_on

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]

Date:	Fri, 6 Jun 2014 08:04:19 +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,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] SCHED: remove proliferation of wait_on_bit action
 functions.


* NeilBrown <neilb@...e.de> wrote:

> On Thu, 5 Jun 2014 14:45:09 +0200 Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org> wrote:
> 
> > 
> > * NeilBrown <neilb@...e.de> wrote:
> > 
> > > On Thu, 22 May 2014 11:05:02 +0200 Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > * 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 you share the build errors?
> > 
> > Sure, find it attached below.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> It looks like this is a wait_on_bit usage that was added after I created the
> patch.
> 
> How about you drop my patch for now, we wait for -rc1 to come out, then I
> submit a new version against -rc1 and we get that into -rc2.
> That should minimise such conflicts.
> 
> Does that work for you?

Sure, that sounds like a good approach, if Linus doesn't object.

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/