Re: [PATCH] fallout from atomic_long_t patch

2006-12-18 Thread Evgeniy Polyakov
On Sun, Dec 17, 2006 at 10:08:49AM -0800, Linus Torvalds ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > So with that out of the way, I'll just expect that I'll get whatever you > decide on through Davem's git tree, once his drunken holiday revelry is > over ;) This is important process - never interrupt it for t

Re: [PATCH] fallout from atomic_long_t patch

2006-12-17 Thread Linus Torvalds
On Sun, 17 Dec 2006, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote: > > Delayed work was used to play with different timeouts and thus allow to > smooth performance peaks, but then I dropped that idea, so timeout is always > zero. Ok, thanks for the explanation. > I posted similar patch today to netdev@, which direc

Re: [PATCH] fallout from atomic_long_t patch

2006-12-17 Thread Evgeniy Polyakov
On Sun, Dec 17, 2006 at 09:24:30AM -0800, Linus Torvalds ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > > On Sun, 17 Dec 2006, Al Viro wrote: > > - if (likely(!test_bit(WORK_STRUCT_PENDING, > > -&__cbq->work.work.management) && > > + if

Re: [PATCH] fallout from atomic_long_t patch

2006-12-17 Thread Linus Torvalds
On Sun, 17 Dec 2006, Al Viro wrote: > - if (likely(!test_bit(WORK_STRUCT_PENDING, > - &__cbq->work.work.management) && > + if (likely(!work_pending(&__cbq->work.work) && That should properly be if (likely(!