[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <935.1576742190@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2019 07:56:30 +0000
From: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: dhowells@...hat.com, Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
Konstantin Khlebnikov <khlebnikov@...dex-team.ru>,
Akemi Yagi <toracat@...epo.org>, DJ Delorie <dj@...hat.com>,
David Sterba <dsterba@...e.cz>,
Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] pipe: Fixes [ver #2]
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> If I were to actually commit it, the "split into two waitqueues" would
> be a separate patch from the "use wait_event_interruptible_exclusive()
> and add "wake_next_reader/writer logic", but for testing purposes the
> unified patch was simpler, and your forward port looks good to me.
I looked at splitting the waitqueue in to two, but it makes poll tricky.
David
Powered by blists - more mailing lists