From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Changli Gao <xiaosuo@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] epoll: use wrapper functions
Date: Fri, 7 May 2010 10:48:05 +0800
Message-ID: <o2l412e6f7f1005061948u1ca0fe54of0b453846c678c85@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1273111054-10141-1-git-send-email-xiaosuo@gmail.com>
	<alpine.DEB.2.00.1005061140100.2642@makko.or.mcafeemobile.com>
	<1273171863.1642.258.camel@laptop>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE
Cc: Davide Libenzi <davidel@xmailserver.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
	Roland Dreier <rolandd@cisco.com>,
	Stefan Richter <stefanr@s5r6.in-berlin.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.de>,
	David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
	linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <1273171863.1642.258.camel@laptop>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org

On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 2:51 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> w=
rote:
> On Thu, 2010-05-06 at 11:47 -0700, Davide Libenzi wrote:
>> Since we already have __add_wait_queue(), __add_wait_queue_tail() an=
d
>> __remove_wait_queue() (which all means "locked"), and while I agree =
in
>> having the exclusive-add wrapped into a function, I much better pref=
er a:
>>
>> static inline void __add_wait_queue_excl(wait_queue_head_t *head,
>> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0=
 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =
=C2=A0wait_queue_t *new)
>> {
>> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 new->flags |=3D WQ_FLAG_EXCLUSIVE;
>> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 __add_wait_queue(head, new);
>> }
>>
>> The patch you posted introduces a different naming, which leaves all=
 the
>> other __*() untouched, and wraps the already one-liner __remove_wait=
_queue()
>> with yet another one-liner.
>
> I concur, I always get confused by the _locked postfix (and its more
> typing). Also, it goes against the lock data not code paradigm.
>
>

I greped all the code, and found that
add_wait_queue_head_exclusive_locked() and remove_wait_queue_locked()
aren't used. It seems that no users like these APIs. So I will remove
these two APIs, and add __add_wait_queue_excl() instead. Thanks.


--=20
Regards=EF=BC=8C
Changli Gao(xiaosuo@gmail.com)