On Thu, 22 May 2014 11:05:02 +0200 Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> * NeilBrown <neilb@xxxxxxx> 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. Other acks
> > welcome.
> > ]]
> >
> > 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.
>
> this patch fails to build on x86-32 allyesconfigs.
Could you share the build errors?
>
> Could we keep the old names for a while, and remove them in the next
> cycle or so?
I don't see how changing the names later rather than now will reduce the
chance of errors... maybe I'm missing something.
Thanks,
NeilBrown
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ingo
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature