On Sun, Jul 24, 2005 at 11:17:02PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Mon, Jun 20, 2005 at 09:54:04PM +0530, Suparna Bhattacharya wrote: > > In order to allow for interruptible and asynchronous versions of > > lock_page in conjunction with the wait_on_bit changes, we need to > > define low-level lock page routines which take an additional > > argument, i.e a wait queue entry and may return non-zero status, > > e.g -EINTR, -EIOCBRETRY, -EWOULDBLOCK etc. This patch renames > > __lock_page to lock_page_slow, so that __lock_page and > > __lock_page_slow can denote the versions which take a wait queue > > parameter. > > How many users that don't use a waitqueue parameter will be left > once all AIO patches go in?
Actually looking at the later patches we always seem to pass current->io_wait anyway, so is there a real point for having the argument? - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
