From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-we0-f173.google.com (mail-we0-f173.google.com [74.125.82.173]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4B5F6B0039 for ; Fri, 6 Jun 2014 02:04:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-we0-f173.google.com with SMTP id u57so2242701wes.4 for ; Thu, 05 Jun 2014 23:04:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wi0-x232.google.com (mail-wi0-x232.google.com [2a00:1450:400c:c05::232]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id qb2si19265279wic.31.2014.06.05.23.04.23 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 05 Jun 2014 23:04:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-wi0-f178.google.com with SMTP id cc10so316757wib.5 for ; Thu, 05 Jun 2014 23:04:23 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2014 08:04:19 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar Subject: Re: [PATCH] SCHED: remove proliferation of wait_on_bit action functions. Message-ID: <20140606060419.GA3737@gmail.com> References: <20140501123738.3e64b2d2@notabene.brown> <20140522090502.GB30094@gmail.com> <20140522195056.445f2dcb@notabene.brown> <20140605124509.GA1975@gmail.com> <20140606102303.09ef9fb3@notabene.brown> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20140606102303.09ef9fb3@notabene.brown> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: NeilBrown Cc: Peter Zijlstra , Oleg Nesterov , David Howells , Steven Whitehouse , dm-devel@redhat.com, Chris Mason , Josef Bacik , Steve French , Theodore Ts'o , Trond Myklebust , Ingo Molnar , Roland McGrath , Andrew Morton , linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, Linus Torvalds * NeilBrown wrote: > On Thu, 5 Jun 2014 14:45:09 +0200 Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > > * NeilBrown wrote: > > > > > On Thu, 22 May 2014 11:05:02 +0200 Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > * NeilBrown 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. Thanks, Ingo -- 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: email@kvack.org