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

[Ingo Molnar]

* NeilBrown <neilb@xxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Thu, 5 Jun 2014 14:45:09 +0200 Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > 
> > * NeilBrown <neilb@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > 
> > > On Thu, 22 May 2014 11:05:02 +0200 Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > * 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 you share the build errors?
> > 
> > Sure, find it attached below.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> It looks like this is a wait_on_bit usage that was added after I created the
> patch.
> 
> How about you drop my patch for now, we wait for -rc1 to come out, then I
> submit a new version against -rc1 and we get that into -rc2.
> That should minimise such conflicts.
> 
> Does that work for you?

Sure, that sounds like a good approach, if Linus doesn't object.

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/