From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list xfs); Sun, 04 May 2008 23:11:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda1.sgi.com [192.48.168.28]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11/SuSE Linux 0.7) with ESMTP id m456Ban4023401 for ; Sun, 4 May 2008 23:11:38 -0700 Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id D8087B00E37 for ; Sun, 4 May 2008 23:12:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [18.85.46.34]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id fwDbuCQ9ZMHQ2odO for ; Sun, 04 May 2008 23:12:21 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 5 May 2008 02:12:17 -0400 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] Replace down_trylock() with down_try(), reverse return values. Message-ID: <20080505061217.GA13398@infradead.org> References: <200805051156.36437.rusty@rustcorp.com.au> <20080505055823.GA20970@infradead.org> <200805051609.13731.rusty@rustcorp.com.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200805051609.13731.rusty@rustcorp.com.au> Sender: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: xfs To: Rusty Russell Cc: Christoph Hellwig , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, gregkh@suse.de, kaos@sgi.com, Stephen Rothwell , rolandd@cisco.com, "Brian S. Julin" , Martin Diehl , mokuno@sm.sony.co.jp, aacraid@adaptec.com, mfasheh@suse.com, wim@iguana.be, xfs@oss.sgi.com, reiserfs-devel@vger.kernel.org, Matthew Wilcox On Mon, May 05, 2008 at 04:09:12PM +1000, Rusty Russell wrote: > > Given that people are actively trying to kill struct semaphore I don't > > think doing a big search and rename is a good idea right now. > > If it goes away before the 2.6.27 merge window, great. But I don't see that > happening, so let's clean up this horror. I cc'd all the people effected in > the hope that it will prod some of them towards mutexes anyway. .27 might not be doable but .28 seems probable if willy and co are continuing to churn like they do currently. > > (And I also really hate the name down_try, but when it goes away that's > > rather void and we can spare the discussion) > > Ideas? down() is pretty bad, down_try() matches it. The trylock is a convention for real locking function, so having one stand out would be nasty. Then again a semaphore is not just a simple lock but a higher level locking primitive, so a down_nowait might make sense because we don't encode the lock anywhere else either