NeilBrown <neilb@xxxxxxx> 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 just uses schedule().
>
> So:
> Rename wait_on_bit and wait_on_bit_lock to
> wait_on_bit_action and wait_on_bit_lock_action
> to make it explicit that they need an action function.
>
> Introduce new wait_on_bit{,_lock} and wait_on_bit{,_lock}_io
> which are *not* given an action function but implicitly use
> a standard one.
> The decision to error-out if a signal is pending is now made
> based on the 'mode' argument rather than being encoded in the action
> function.
Yay! About time! This is something I've wanted to do for ages, but never
quite got around to.
Acked-by: David Howells <dhowells@xxxxxxxxxx>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
