On Mon, 15 Apr 2013, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > The positive numbers are used to return information on the remaining > > cache size (again, see the comment I pasted above). We could use > > -EBUSY, but we'd have to change vmscan.c, which checks specifically > > for -1. I can't see a technical reason why -EBUSY couldn't have been > > chosen instead, but there's also no real reason to change it now. > > If it's not the correct thing to do, sure we can change it, just send a > patch. It makes way more sense than some random -1 return value to me. > > Care to send a series of patches fixing this up properly? > The comment in shrinker.h is misleading, not the source code. do_shrinker_shrink() will fail for anything negative and 0. The patch being discussed could easily use -1 or 0 hardcoded into the return value, forget the definition of LMK_BUSY. Also, please consider using an atomic chmpxchg instead of a spinlock: if you're only ever doing spin_trylock() then you don't need a spinlock. _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
