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

[NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2673 bytes --]

On Fri, 6 Jun 2014 08:04:19 +0200 Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> wrote:

> 
> * NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de> wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, 5 Jun 2014 14:45:09 +0200 Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> wrote:
> > 
> > > 
> > > * NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > On Thu, 22 May 2014 11:05:02 +0200 Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > * NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de> 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.
> 

Hi Ingo,
 I re-posted these patches based on -rc2 (I missed -rc1, it was too fast) and
 have not heard anything over a week later.  Did I misunderstand?  Did you
 want me to send them direct to Linus?
 Or are you on a summer break and I should just be patient?

Thanks,
NeilBrown


[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 828 bytes --]