On Wed, 30 Apr 2014 09:31:54 +0200 Peter Zijlstra
wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 12:29:26PM +1000, NeilBrown wrote:
> > If you think it is a good cleanup I'll post a proper patch with all the
> > right
> > Cc:s.
>
> Yeah, its a good cleanup. Thanks!
>
> > +static inline int
> >
On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 09:31:54AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 12:29:26PM +1000, NeilBrown wrote:
> > If you think it is a good cleanup I'll post a proper patch with all the
> > right
> > Cc:s.
>
> Yeah, its a good cleanup. Thanks!
Also, please add Oleg to the Cc, he
On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 12:29:26PM +1000, NeilBrown wrote:
> If you think it is a good cleanup I'll post a proper patch with all the right
> Cc:s.
Yeah, its a good cleanup. Thanks!
> +static inline int
> +wait_on_bit(void *word, int bit, unsigned mode)
> +{
> + if (!test_bit(bit, word))
> +
On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 12:29:26PM +1000, NeilBrown wrote:
If you think it is a good cleanup I'll post a proper patch with all the right
Cc:s.
Yeah, its a good cleanup. Thanks!
+static inline int
+wait_on_bit(void *word, int bit, unsigned mode)
+{
+ if (!test_bit(bit, word))
+
On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 09:31:54AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 12:29:26PM +1000, NeilBrown wrote:
If you think it is a good cleanup I'll post a proper patch with all the
right
Cc:s.
Yeah, its a good cleanup. Thanks!
Also, please add Oleg to the Cc, he was
On Wed, 30 Apr 2014 09:31:54 +0200 Peter Zijlstra pet...@infradead.org
wrote:
On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 12:29:26PM +1000, NeilBrown wrote:
If you think it is a good cleanup I'll post a proper patch with all the
right
Cc:s.
Yeah, its a good cleanup. Thanks!
+static inline int
On Tue, 29 Apr 2014 12:32:17 +0200 Peter Zijlstra
wrote:
> So I'm sure I'm not getting it; but why is all the wait_bit crap so
> entirely different from the normal wait stuff?
>
> Surely something like:
>
> wait_event_timeout(, test_bit(bit, word), timeout);
>
> Is pretty much the same,
On Tue, 29 Apr 2014 12:32:17 +0200 Peter Zijlstra
wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 07:44:06PM +1000, NeilBrown wrote:
> >
> >
> > It is currently not possible for various wait_on_bit functions to
> > implement a timeout.
> > While the "action" function that is called to do the waiting could
>
On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 07:44:06PM +1000, NeilBrown wrote:
>
>
> It is currently not possible for various wait_on_bit functions to
> implement a timeout.
> While the "action" function that is called to do the waiting could
> certainly use schedule_timeout(), there is no way to carry forward the
It is currently not possible for various wait_on_bit functions to
implement a timeout.
While the "action" function that is called to do the waiting could
certainly use schedule_timeout(), there is no way to carry forward the
remaining timeout after a false wake-up.
As false-wakeups a clearly
It is currently not possible for various wait_on_bit functions to
implement a timeout.
While the action function that is called to do the waiting could
certainly use schedule_timeout(), there is no way to carry forward the
remaining timeout after a false wake-up.
As false-wakeups a clearly
On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 07:44:06PM +1000, NeilBrown wrote:
It is currently not possible for various wait_on_bit functions to
implement a timeout.
While the action function that is called to do the waiting could
certainly use schedule_timeout(), there is no way to carry forward the
On Tue, 29 Apr 2014 12:32:17 +0200 Peter Zijlstra pet...@infradead.org
wrote:
On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 07:44:06PM +1000, NeilBrown wrote:
It is currently not possible for various wait_on_bit functions to
implement a timeout.
While the action function that is called to do the waiting
On Tue, 29 Apr 2014 12:32:17 +0200 Peter Zijlstra pet...@infradead.org
wrote:
So I'm sure I'm not getting it; but why is all the wait_bit crap so
entirely different from the normal wait stuff?
Surely something like:
wait_event_timeout(wq, test_bit(bit, word), timeout);
Is pretty
14 matches
Mail list logo
