All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
To: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de>
Cc: dhowells@redhat.com, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>,
	Steven Whitehouse <swhiteho@redhat.com>,
	dm-devel@redhat.com, Chris Mason <clm@fb.com>,
	Josef Bacik <jbacik@fb.com>, Steve French <sfrench@samba.org>,
	Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>,
	Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@primarydata.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] SCHED: remove proliferation of wait_on_bit action functions.
Date: Tue, 13 May 2014 17:08:46 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <30874.1399997326@warthog.procyon.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20140501123738.3e64b2d2@notabene.brown>

NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de> wrote:

> 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.

Yay!  About time!  This is something I've wanted to do for ages, but never
quite got around to.

Acked-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
To: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de>
Cc: dhowells@redhat.com, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>,
	Steven Whitehouse <swhiteho@redhat.com>,
	dm-devel@redhat.com, Chris Mason <clm@fb.com>,
	Josef Bacik <jbacik@fb.com>, Steve French <sfrench@samba.org>,
	"Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>,
	Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@primarydata.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] SCHED: remove proliferation of wait_on_bit action functions.
Date: Tue, 13 May 2014 17:08:46 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <30874.1399997326@warthog.procyon.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20140501123738.3e64b2d2@notabene.brown>

NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de> wrote:

> 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.

Yay!  About time!  This is something I've wanted to do for ages, but never
quite got around to.

Acked-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>

  parent reply	other threads:[~2014-05-13 16:08 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2014-05-01  2:37 [PATCH] SCHED: remove proliferation of wait_on_bit action functions NeilBrown
2014-05-01  7:42 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-05-01  7:42   ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-05-01  9:26   ` NeilBrown
2014-05-01  9:31     ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-05-01  9:31       ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-05-13 16:06 ` David Howells
2014-05-13 16:06   ` David Howells
2014-05-13 16:45   ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-05-13 16:45     ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-05-13 16:08 ` David Howells [this message]
2014-05-13 16:08   ` David Howells
2014-05-19 13:08 ` [tip:sched/core] sched: Remove " tip-bot for NeilBrown
2014-05-22  9:05 ` [PATCH] SCHED: remove " Ingo Molnar
2014-05-22  9:05   ` Ingo Molnar
2014-05-22  9:50   ` NeilBrown
2014-06-05 12:45     ` Ingo Molnar
2014-06-05 12:45       ` Ingo Molnar
2014-06-05 12:45       ` Ingo Molnar
2014-06-06  0:23       ` NeilBrown
2014-06-06  6:04         ` Ingo Molnar
2014-06-06  6:04           ` Ingo Molnar
2014-07-02  1:28           ` NeilBrown

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=30874.1399997326@warthog.procyon.org.uk \
    --to=dhowells@redhat.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=clm@fb.com \
    --cc=dm-devel@redhat.com \
    --cc=jbacik@fb.com \
    --cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=neilb@suse.de \
    --cc=oleg@redhat.com \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=sfrench@samba.org \
    --cc=swhiteho@redhat.com \
    --cc=trond.myklebust@primarydata.com \
    --cc=tytso@mit.edu \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.