Re: [PATCH] epoll: use wrapper functions

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Thu, 2010-05-06 at 11:47 -0700, Davide Libenzi wrote:
> Since we already have __add_wait_queue(), __add_wait_queue_tail() and 
> __remove_wait_queue() (which all means "locked"), and while I agree in 
> having the exclusive-add wrapped into a function, I much better prefer a:
> 
> static inline void __add_wait_queue_excl(wait_queue_head_t *head, 
>                                          wait_queue_t *new)
> {
>         new->flags |= WQ_FLAG_EXCLUSIVE;
>         __add_wait_queue(head, new);
> }
> 
> The patch you posted introduces a different naming, which leaves all the 
> other __*() untouched, and wraps the already one-liner __remove_wait_queue() 
> with yet another one-liner. 

I concur, I always get confused by the _locked postfix (and its more
typing). Also, it goes against the lock data not code paradigm.

--
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/