On Fri, 6 Jun 2014 08:04:19 +0200 Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * NeilBrown wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 5 Jun 2014 14:45:09 +0200 Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > * NeilBrown wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Thu, 22 May 2014 11:05:02 +0200 Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > * NeilBrown wrote:
* NeilBrown wrote:
> On Thu, 5 Jun 2014 14:45:09 +0200 Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> >
> > * NeilBrown wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, 22 May 2014 11:05:02 +0200 Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > * NeilBrown wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > [[ get_maintainer.pl suggested 61 email address for this pat
On Thu, 5 Jun 2014 14:45:09 +0200 Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * NeilBrown wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 22 May 2014 11:05:02 +0200 Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > * NeilBrown wrote:
> > >
> > > > [[ get_maintainer.pl suggested 61 email address for this patch.
> > > >I've trimmed that list somewh
* NeilBrown wrote:
> On Thu, 22 May 2014 11:05:02 +0200 Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> >
> > * NeilBrown wrote:
> >
> > > [[ get_maintainer.pl suggested 61 email address for this patch.
> > >I've trimmed that list somewhat. Hope I didn't miss anyone
> > >important...
> > >I'm hoping it
On Thu, 22 May 2014 11:05:02 +0200 Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * NeilBrown wrote:
>
> > [[ get_maintainer.pl suggested 61 email address for this patch.
> >I've trimmed that list somewhat. Hope I didn't miss anyone
> >important...
> >I'm hoping it will go in through the scheduler tree,
* NeilBrown wrote:
> [[ get_maintainer.pl suggested 61 email address for this patch.
>I've trimmed that list somewhat. Hope I didn't miss anyone
>important...
>I'm hoping it will go in through the scheduler tree, but would
>particularly like an Acked-by for the fscache parts. O
On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 05:06:10PM +0100, David Howells wrote:
> NeilBrown wrote:
>
> > The wait_on_bit() call in __fscache_wait_on_invalidate() was ambiguous
> > as it specified TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE but used
> > fscache_wait_bit_interruptible as an action function.
> > As any error return is nev
NeilBrown wrote:
> The current "wait_on_bit" interface requires an 'action' function
> to be provided which does the actual waiting.
> There are over 20 such functions, many of them identical.
> Most cases can be satisfied by one of just two functions, one
> which uses io_schedule() and one which
NeilBrown wrote:
> The wait_on_bit() call in __fscache_wait_on_invalidate() was ambiguous
> as it specified TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE but used
> fscache_wait_bit_interruptible as an action function.
> As any error return is never checked I assumed that 'uninterruptible'
> was correct.
Bug. It should
On Thu, May 01, 2014 at 07:26:05PM +1000, NeilBrown wrote:
> On Thu, 1 May 2014 09:42:57 +0200 Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> > On Thu, May 01, 2014 at 12:37:38PM +1000, NeilBrown wrote:
> > > +static inline int
> > > +wait_on_bit(void *word, int bit, unsigned mode)
> > > +{
> > > + if (!test_bit(bit,
On Thu, 1 May 2014 09:42:57 +0200 Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, May 01, 2014 at 12:37:38PM +1000, NeilBrown wrote:
> > +static inline int
> > +wait_on_bit(void *word, int bit, unsigned mode)
> > +{
> > + if (!test_bit(bit, word))
> > + return 0;
> > + return out_of_line_wait_on_bi
On Thu, May 01, 2014 at 12:37:38PM +1000, NeilBrown wrote:
> +static inline int
> +wait_on_bit(void *word, int bit, unsigned mode)
> +{
> + if (!test_bit(bit, word))
> + return 0;
> + return out_of_line_wait_on_bit(word, bit,
> +bit_wait,
> +
12 matches
Mail list logo
