From: Tejun Heo <htejun@gmail.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Cc: Davide Libenzi <davidel@xmailserver.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Matthew Wilcox <matthew@wil.cx>,
Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu>,
arjan@linux.intel.com,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
hch@infradead.org, rminnich@sandia.gov, ericvh@gmail.com,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: poll: allow f_op->poll to sleep, take #3
Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2008 18:43:12 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <492925B0.9030404@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20081123093420.GN30453@elte.hu>
Ingo Molnar wrote:
> _sync() is not something that should normally be done from poll
> handlers. But ->poll() handlers should all be TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE,
> right? So wake_up_process_interruptible() should be the thing you
> need?
>
> Anyway, if you really want to pass in a state filter, you can use the
> already existing wake_up_state() method as well.
It's not really about what I want but more about how the interface
looks in the first place. Something like the following is simply
ugly.
int my_callback(param a, param b, param c)
{
WARN_ON(b != B);
do_something(a);
}
And @sync might be useful depending on who's waking it up, so we
either need to change the wake interface or give it an easier way to
pass those parameters as received. The callback function isn't the
right place to ignore those parameters. It simply doesn't know why
the caller is passing them in or what they mean under the
circumstances.
Thanks.
--
tejun
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-11-23 9:43 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-11-22 8:58 [PATCH fwd] poll: allow f_op->poll to sleep Miklos Szeredi
2008-11-22 9:27 ` Andrew Morton
2008-11-22 12:39 ` Matthew Wilcox
2008-11-22 12:43 ` Tejun Heo
2008-11-22 18:53 ` Andrew Morton
2008-11-23 1:26 ` poll: allow f_op->poll to sleep, take #3 Tejun Heo
2008-11-23 2:35 ` Davide Libenzi
2008-11-23 3:05 ` Tejun Heo
2008-11-23 3:34 ` Brad Boyer
2008-11-23 3:48 ` Tejun Heo
2008-11-23 8:59 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-11-23 9:14 ` Tejun Heo
2008-11-23 9:34 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-11-23 9:43 ` Tejun Heo [this message]
2008-11-23 9:45 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-11-24 4:29 ` Tejun Heo
2008-11-24 4:57 ` Davide Libenzi
2008-11-24 5:05 ` Davide Libenzi
2008-11-24 6:09 ` [PATCH] poll: allow f_op->poll to sleep, take #4 Tejun Heo
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=492925B0.9030404@gmail.com \
--to=htejun@gmail.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=arjan@linux.intel.com \
--cc=davidel@xmailserver.org \
--cc=ericvh@gmail.com \
--cc=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=matthew@wil.cx \
--cc=miklos@szeredi.hu \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=rminnich@sandia.gov \
--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