From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>,
Paul Menage <menage@google.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Matthew Wilcox <matthew@wil.cx>,
"Randy.Dunlap" <rdunlap@xenotime.net>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Introduce down_try() so we can move away from down_trylock()
Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2008 10:40:46 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20080801104046.e9e8d6fd.akpm@linux-foundation.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LFD.1.10.0808011022230.3277@nehalem.linux-foundation.org>
On Fri, 1 Aug 2008 10:26:33 -0700 (PDT) Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> > I planned on removing the much-disliked down_trylock() (with its
> > backwards return codes) in 2.6.27, but it's creating something of a
> > logjam with other patches in -mm and linux-next.
> >
> > Andrew suggested introducing "down_try" as a wrapper now, to make
> > the transition easier.
>
> The transition to WHAT? To crap?
>
The naming is pretty sad, but the inconsistent return value from
down_trylock() drives me batshit. It means that every time I ever look
at any sort of trylock call I need to go back to the definition site to
work out if it's the one which returns true or if it's the one which
returns false.
It would be good to get that fixed. And if we _do_ want to fix it, I
don't see any alternative to creating a new function.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-08-01 17:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-07-29 0:15 [PATCH] Introduce down_try() so we can move away from down_trylock() Rusty Russell
2008-07-29 0:27 ` Paul Menage
2008-07-29 13:01 ` Rusty Russell
2008-07-29 16:21 ` Randy Dunlap
2008-07-29 23:56 ` Rusty Russell
2008-08-01 17:26 ` Linus Torvalds
2008-08-01 17:40 ` Andrew Morton [this message]
2008-08-01 18:22 ` Linus Torvalds
2008-08-03 8:33 ` Rusty Russell
2008-08-03 13:07 ` Matthew Wilcox
2008-08-03 17:33 ` Linus Torvalds
2008-08-03 17:35 ` Linus Torvalds
2008-08-04 3:28 ` Rusty Russell
2008-08-04 5:53 ` Linus Torvalds
2008-08-04 7:57 ` Rusty Russell
2008-08-04 8:45 ` Alan Cox
2008-08-04 11:43 ` Rusty Russell
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20080801104046.e9e8d6fd.akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--to=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=matthew@wil.cx \
--cc=menage@google.com \
--cc=rdunlap@xenotime.net \
--cc=rusty@rustcorp.com.au \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox