Re: [PATCH 2/6] Rename __lock_page to lock_page_slow

Christoph Hellwig
2005-07-24T22:36:43Z

On Sun, Jul 24, 2005 at 11:17:02PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 20, 2005 at 09:54:04PM +0530, Suparna Bhattacharya wrote:
> > In order to allow for interruptible and asynchronous versions of
> > lock_page in conjunction with the wait_on_bit changes, we need to
> > define low-level lock page routines which take an additional
> > argument, i.e a wait queue entry and may return non-zero status,
> > e.g -EINTR, -EIOCBRETRY, -EWOULDBLOCK etc. This patch renames
> > __lock_page to lock_page_slow, so that __lock_page and
> > __lock_page_slow can denote the versions which take a wait queue
> > parameter.
>
> How many users that don't use a waitqueue parameter will be left
> once all AIO patches go in?

Actually looking at the later patches we always seem to pass
current->io_wait anyway, so is there a real point for having the
argument?