Re: [PATCH] SCHED: remove proliferation of wait_on_bit action functions.

[Ingo Molnar]

* NeilBrown <neilb@xxxxxxx> 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 we keep the old names for a while, and remove them in the next 
cycle or so?

Thanks,

	Ingo
--
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/