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

Christoph Hellwig
2005-07-24T22:17:16Z

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?