Re: [PATCH] kernel/async.c:introduce async_schedule*_atomic

[Arjan van de Ven]

On Mon, 18 May 2009 09:55:14 +0800
Ming Lei <tom.leiming@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> >
> > in cases where you don't want to fail while in the atomic portion,
> > but can fail better earlier.
> 
> If we do this way, the type of async_schedule*()  and
> async_schedule*_inatomic() is different, and callers will be messed
> with them, especially for _inatomic().

I'm not so much proposing the external "simple API" to have this,
but the primitive should have it, so that we can provide a
__async_schedule_inatomic() which does have the option..


> 
> BTW: I have submited new version of this patches, would you mind
> giving a review?

I gave comments on various threads from my inbox, but I cannot rule out
having missed one... If you think I missed one, could you send me a 
private email with the latest patches you want reviewed (even if it's a
forward from what you sent earlier)?

I'm happy to see these enhancements btw...


-- 
Arjan van de Ven 	Intel Open Source Technology Centre
For development, discussion and tips for power savings, 
visit http://www.lesswatts.org
--
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/