* NeilBrown <neilb@xxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, 5 Jun 2014 14:45:09 +0200 Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > * NeilBrown <neilb@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > 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? > > > > Sure, find it attached below. > > Thanks. > > It looks like this is a wait_on_bit usage that was added after I created the > patch. > > How about you drop my patch for now, we wait for -rc1 to come out, then I > submit a new version against -rc1 and we get that into -rc2. > That should minimise such conflicts. > > Does that work for you? Sure, that sounds like a good approach, if Linus doesn't object. Thanks, Ingo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html