> --- linux/include/linux/locks.h.orig Mon Feb 19 23:16:50 2001
> +++ linux/include/linux/locks.h Mon Feb 19 23:21:48 2001
> @@ -13,6 +13,7 @@
> * lock buffers.
> */
> extern void __wait_on_buffer(struct buffer_head *);
> +extern void __lock_buffer(struct buffer_head *);
This doesn't
> > > extern void __wait_on_buffer(struct buffer_head *);
> > > +extern void __lock_buffer(struct buffer_head *);
> >
> > So are we starting 2.5 now ?
>
> Alan,
>
> This patch only avoids unecessary wakeups. It doesn't add any new
> functionality.
I think making potentially very hard to debug
On Tue, 20 Feb 2001, Alan Cox wrote:
> > --- linux/include/linux/locks.h.origMon Feb 19 23:16:50 2001
> > +++ linux/include/linux/locks.h Mon Feb 19 23:21:48 2001
> > @@ -13,6 +13,7 @@
> > * lock buffers.
> > */
> > extern void __wait_on_buffer(struct buffer_head *);
> > +exter
On Tue, 20 Feb 2001, Alan Cox wrote:
> Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 03:12:15 + (GMT)
> From: Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: Marcelo Tosatti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> lkml <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re
> --- linux/include/linux/locks.h.orig Mon Feb 19 23:16:50 2001
> +++ linux/include/linux/locks.h Mon Feb 19 23:21:48 2001
> @@ -13,6 +13,7 @@
> * lock buffers.
> */
> extern void __wait_on_buffer(struct buffer_head *);
> +extern void __lock_buffer(struct buffer_head *);
So are we sta
On Mon, 19 Feb 2001, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 19 Feb 2001, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> >
> > The following patch makes lock_buffer() use the exclusive wakeup scheme
> > added in 2.3.
>
> Ugh, This is horrible.
>
> You should NOT have one function that does two completely different
On Mon, 19 Feb 2001, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
>
> The following patch makes lock_buffer() use the exclusive wakeup scheme
> added in 2.3.
Ugh, This is horrible.
You should NOT have one function that does two completely different things
depending on a flag. That way lies madness and bad coding h
7 matches
Mail list logo
