From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-block@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/7] sched: change wake_up_bit() and related function to expect unsigned long *
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2024 13:28:10 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20240916112810.GY4723@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20240826063659.15327-3-neilb@suse.de>
On Mon, Aug 26, 2024 at 04:30:59PM +1000, NeilBrown wrote:
> wake_up_bit() currently allows a "void *". While this isn't strictly a
> problem as the address is never dereferenced, it is inconsistent with
> the corresponding wait_var_event() which requires "unsigned long *" and
> does dereference the pointer.
I'm having trouble parsing this. The way I read it, you're contradicting
yourself. Where does wait_var_event() require 'unsigned long *' ?
> And code that needs to wait for a change in something other than an
> unsigned long would be better served by wake_up_var().
This, afaict the whole var thing is size invariant. It only cares about
the address.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-09-16 11:28 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-08-26 6:30 [PATCH 0/7 v2 RFC] Make wake_up_{bit,var} less fragile NeilBrown
2024-08-26 6:30 ` [PATCH 1/7] block: change wait on bd_claiming to use a var_waitqueue, not a bit_waitqueue NeilBrown
2024-09-17 3:12 ` Jens Axboe
2024-09-17 21:54 ` NeilBrown
2024-09-17 3:13 ` (subset) " Jens Axboe
2024-08-26 6:30 ` [PATCH 2/7] sched: change wake_up_bit() and related function to expect unsigned long * NeilBrown
2024-09-16 11:28 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2024-09-16 11:48 ` NeilBrown
2024-09-16 18:18 ` Peter Zijlstra
2024-09-16 20:37 ` NeilBrown
2024-08-26 6:31 ` [PATCH 3/7] sched: Improve documentation for wake_up_bit/wait_on_bit family of functions NeilBrown
2024-08-26 6:31 ` [PATCH 4/7] sched: Document wait_var_event() family of functions and wake_up_var() NeilBrown
2024-08-26 6:31 ` [PATCH 5/7] sched: Add test_and_clear_wake_up_bit() and atomic_dec_and_wake_up() NeilBrown
2024-08-26 6:31 ` [PATCH 6/7] sched: Add wait/wake interface for variable updated under a lock NeilBrown
2024-08-26 6:31 ` [PATCH 7/7] Block: switch bd_prepare_to_claim to use wait_var_event_mutex() NeilBrown
2024-09-15 23:52 ` [PATCH 0/7 v2 RFC] Make wake_up_{bit,var} less fragile NeilBrown
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=20240916112810.GY4723@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=neilb@suse.de \
--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