Re: [patch 3/7] epoll keyed wakeups - introduce key-aware wakeupmacros

From: Davide Libenzi
Date: Sat Jan 31 2009 - 13:57:53 EST


On Sat, 31 Jan 2009, Ingo Molnar wrote:

>
> * Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 31 Jan 2009, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > >
> > > Would be nice to see the kernel image size increase due to this change
> > > (which gives a good measure about how much of an issue this is).
> >
> > Ingo, I don't think you have looked at that header file for a while.
> >
> > It's already doing that, Davide just changed the names a bit:
> >
> > #define wake_up_interruptible(x) __wake_up(x, TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE, 1, NULL)
> >
> > and the extra parameter is already there in the caller.
>
> Yeah, indeed - i should have noticed the absense of new function
> prototypes in the patch ... and in any case i shouldnt post at 4am ;)
>
> > (Yeah, Davide did add it to __wake_up_locked and __wake_up_sync, but
> > those are really not the common cases).
> >
> > Sure, we can change those #define's to be actual functions (and perhaps
> > not export the low-level __wake_up() functions at all), since it's true
> > that it would probably shrink the kernel size, but that is really a
> > totally independent issue from the whole epoll wakeups thing.
>
> Yeah. Will have a look at that independently of Davide's patch.

The ones with an extra parameter are "sync" and "locked". The
simple __wake_up() ones, already had the parameter.
So your idea would be to have __wake_up_locked_XXX and __wake_up_sync_XXX
instead of adding an extra parameter, no?
If yes, what about XXX? "key"?



- Davide


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/