From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752284AbZAaDbP (ORCPT ); Fri, 30 Jan 2009 22:31:15 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751025AbZAaDa7 (ORCPT ); Fri, 30 Jan 2009 22:30:59 -0500 Received: from mx2.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:47743 "EHLO mx2.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750779AbZAaDa6 (ORCPT ); Fri, 30 Jan 2009 22:30:58 -0500 Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2009 04:30:35 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar To: Davide Libenzi Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List , Andrew Morton , Linus Torvalds , Alan Cox , David Miller Subject: Re: [patch 3/7] epoll keyed wakeups - introduce key-aware wakeup macros Message-ID: <20090131033035.GA26640@elte.hu> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamScore: -1.5 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-1.5 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.3 -1.5 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Davide Libenzi wrote: > +#define wake_up(x) kwake_up(x, NULL) > +#define wake_up_nr(x, nr) kwake_up_nr(x, nr, NULL) > +#define wake_up_all(x) kwake_up_all(x, NULL) > +#define wake_up_locked(x) kwake_up_locked(x, NULL) > + > +#define wake_up_interruptible(x) kwake_up_interruptible(x, NULL) > +#define wake_up_interruptible_nr(x, nr) kwake_up_interruptible_nr(x, nr, NULL) > +#define wake_up_interruptible_all(x) kwake_up_interruptible_all(x, NULL) > +#define wake_up_interruptible_sync(x) kwake_up_interruptible_sync(x, NULL) i like the patchset - nice work! One minor worry i have: these wakeup calls are _very_ common in the kernel, and this patch adds an extra parameter to it that is unused (NULL) in 99% of the cases. Would be nice to see the kernel image size increase due to this change (which gives a good measure about how much of an issue this is). If it's of any worrying level, it might make sense to keep the original functions untouched, and introduce a second entry point that has one more parameter. Ok? Ingo