On 23/09/2019 22:27, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. > Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? > A: Top-posting. > Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail? > > On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 07:37:46PM +0300, Pavel Begunkov wrote: >> Just in case duplicating a mail from the cover-letter thread: > > Just because every patch should have a self contained and coherent > Changelog. Well, I will expand the patch description, if we agree on the implementation (at least conceptually). >> >> BTW, this monster is mostly a copy-paste from wait_event_*(), >> wait_bit_*(). We could try to extract some common parts from these >> three, but that's another topic. > > I don't think that is another topic at all. It is a quality of > implementation issue. We already have too many copies of all that (3). For example, ___wait_event() is copied in ___wait_var_event(). Instead it could accept a wait entry generator or just accept entry from above and be reused in both cases. I've had such a patch, but want to think what else could be done. e.g. ``` #define generic_wait_event(ENTRY_GEN, ...) ENTRY_GEN(wq_entry_name); do_wait_event(wq_entry_name); #define WBQ_ENTRY_GEN(name) struct wait_bit_queue_entry tmp = WBQ_INITIALIZER; struct wait_queue_entry name = &tmp->wq_entry; ``` > > So basically you want to fudge the wake function to do the/a @cond test, > not unlike what wait_bit already does, but differenly. > Yes > I'm really rather annoyed with C for not having proper lambda functions; > that would make all this so much easier. Anyway, let me have a poke at > this in the morning, it's late already. > > Also, is anything actually using wait_queue_entry::private ? I'm > not finding any in a hurry. > > -- Yours sincerely, Pavel Begunkov
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
