Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751144AbaFFGE1 (ORCPT ); Fri, 6 Jun 2014 02:04:27 -0400 Received: from mail-wg0-f47.google.com ([74.125.82.47]:36853 "EHLO mail-wg0-f47.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750710AbaFFGEZ (ORCPT ); Fri, 6 Jun 2014 02:04:25 -0400 Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2014 08:04:19 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: NeilBrown Cc: Peter Zijlstra , Oleg Nesterov , David Howells , Steven Whitehouse , dm-devel@redhat.com, Chris Mason , Josef Bacik , Steve French , "Theodore Ts'o" , Trond Myklebust , Ingo Molnar , Roland McGrath , Andrew Morton , linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: [PATCH] SCHED: remove proliferation of wait_on_bit action functions. Message-ID: <20140606060419.GA3737@gmail.com> References: <20140501123738.3e64b2d2@notabene.brown> <20140522090502.GB30094@gmail.com> <20140522195056.445f2dcb@notabene.brown> <20140605124509.GA1975@gmail.com> <20140606102303.09ef9fb3@notabene.brown> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20140606102303.09ef9fb3@notabene.brown> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * NeilBrown wrote: > On Thu, 5 Jun 2014 14:45:09 +0200 Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > > * NeilBrown wrote: > > > > > On Thu, 22 May 2014 11:05:02 +0200 Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > * NeilBrown 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@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/