On 03/19, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> OK, I'll try to test/cleanup/resend tomorrow.
Cough. Still un-tested, sorry. I will test it somehow and report,
but I'd like to send this for review right now.
Because I simply can't decide what the new flag should actually
do, so please ack/nack the semantics/naming at least.
Changes:
1. I decided it would be better to change __wait_event()
to accept wait.flags right now. This looks better in
any case to me, and otherwise we need to introduce the
__wait_exclusive_enum.
The change looks trivial (both actually), please tell
me if you think it doesn't deserve a separate patch.
2. I won't insist, but WQ_FLAG_EXCLUSIVE_HEAD can be used
without WQ_FLAG_EXCLUSIVE.
Unlikely this can be useful, but it looks more natural
this way. Otherwise we need to add another check to
ensure that WQ_FLAG_EXCLUSIVE_HEAD can't come alone.
However, perhaps this means the new flag needs another
name. I agree in advance with any.
Oleg.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
