From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tejun Heo Subject: Re: [PATCH fwd] poll: allow f_op->poll to sleep Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2008 21:43:51 +0900 Message-ID: <4927FE87.6050005@gmail.com> References: <20081122123942.GF5707@parisc-linux.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Miklos Szeredi , akpm@linux-foundation.org, arjan@linux.intel.com, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, hch@infradead.org, mingo@elte.hu, rminnich@sandia.gov, ericvh@gmail.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org To: Matthew Wilcox Return-path: Received: from ti-out-0910.google.com ([209.85.142.190]:26399 "EHLO ti-out-0910.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757450AbYKVMn6 (ORCPT ); Sat, 22 Nov 2008 07:43:58 -0500 Received: by ti-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id b6so843587tic.23 for ; Sat, 22 Nov 2008 04:43:56 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20081122123942.GF5707@parisc-linux.org> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Matthew Wilcox wrote: > On Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 09:58:33AM +0100, Miklos Szeredi wrote: >> +int poll_schedule_timeout(struct poll_wqueues *pwq, int state, >> + ktime_t *expires, unsigned long slack) > > All callers of poll_schedule() and poll_schedule_timeout() pass > TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE. We can elide the 'state' argument. Well, I wanted to keep it as to keep it more consistent with other schedule() functions but both Miklos and you don't seem to like it, so I might as well just drop it. Andrew, what do you think? Thanks. -- tejun