Re: [PATCH 1/2] do_wait reorganization

[Roland McGrath]

> I also wonder if you really need both "int *retval" and the return value. 
> Isn't "retval" always going to be zero or a negative errno? 

No.

> And the return value is going to be either true of false?

Yes.

> Why not just fold them into one single thing:
> 
>  - negative: all done, with error
>  - zero: this didn't trigger, continue with the next one in caller
>  - positive: this thread triggered, all done, return 0 in the caller.
> 
> which is (I think) close to what we already do in eligible_child() (so 
> this would not be a new calling convention for this particular code).

You listed the three possibilities for eligible_child().
For wait_consider_task(), there are four possibilities:

 - all done, with error
 - this thread was not eligible, look for another; return -ECHILD if none ready
 - this thread was eligible but is not ready; return 0 or block if none ready
 - all done, this thread is ready; return its pid

I'll post another version that I think you'll like a little better.


Thanks,
Roland
--
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/