On 2014/03/20, 11:51 AM, "Oleg Nesterov" <o...@redhat.com> wrote:
>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. What about: #define WQ_FLAG_HEAD 0x02 #define WQ_FLAG_EXCLUSIVE_HEAD (WQ_FLAG_HEAD | WQ_FLAG_EXCLUSIVE) That avoids having WQ_FLAG_EXCLUSIVE_HEAD not actually meaning "exclusive"? Patches look reasonable at first glance. The second patch would need to be changed to handle that WQ_FLAG_EXCLUSIVE_HEAD has both bits set (probably just replace uses of WQ_FLAG_EXCLUSIVE_HEAD with WQ_FLAG_HEAD). Cheers, Andreas -- Andreas Dilger Lustre Software Architect Intel High Performance Data Division -- 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/
