From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tejun Heo Subject: Re: poll: allow f_op->poll to sleep, take #3 Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2008 12:48:50 +0900 Message-ID: <4928D2A2.4030304@gmail.com> References: <20081122123942.GF5707@parisc-linux.org> <4927FE87.6050005@gmail.com> <20081122105356.87856d04.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <4928B162.9030404@gmail.com> <4928C891.80405@gmail.com> <20081123033457.GA1912@cynthia.pants.nu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Davide Libenzi , Andrew Morton , Matthew Wilcox , Miklos Szeredi , arjan@linux.intel.com, Linus Torvalds , hch@infradead.org, Ingo Molnar , rminnich@sandia.gov, ericvh@gmail.com, Linux Kernel Mailing List , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org To: Brad Boyer Return-path: Received: from ti-out-0910.google.com ([209.85.142.187]:25717 "EHLO ti-out-0910.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755458AbYKWDsc (ORCPT ); Sat, 22 Nov 2008 22:48:32 -0500 Received: by ti-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id b6so946168tic.23 for ; Sat, 22 Nov 2008 19:48:29 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20081123033457.GA1912@cynthia.pants.nu> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Brad Boyer wrote: > On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 12:05:53PM +0900, Tejun Heo wrote: >> I thought try_to_wake_up() was made static to avoid abuse but then again >> creating dummy waitqueue is an obvious abuse of waitqueue. What do >> other people think? I'll be happy to use try_to_wake_up() directly. > > Do you need all the extra arguments? The function wake_up_process() > is already a wrapper around try_to_wake_up() and is exported, but > it doesn't have any arguments other than the task_struct and uses > defaults for the other arguments. I'm not sure if anything in your > code would break by ignoring the other possible values instead of > passing them along from the arguments into the caller. Hmmm... there was something which made wake_up_process() inappropriate. Ah, okay, it was @mode. We can add a WARN_ON() if @mode is an unexpected value and use a fixed one - TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE or TASK_ALL - but that's even hackier than the waitqueue hack. Thanks. -- tejun