On Monday 05 May 2008 15:58:23 Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Mon, May 05, 2008 at 01:56:35AM +0000, Rusty Russell wrote: > > down_trylock() returns 1 on failure, 0 on success. This differs from > > spin_trylock(), mutex_trylock() and common sense. Or as ocfs2 put it > > "kernel 1, world 0". > > > > Rename it to down_try() (which makes more sense anyway), and reverse > > it. Fortunately there aren't a huge number of callers left. > > Given that people are actively trying to kill struct semaphore I don't > think doing a big search and rename is a good idea right now. If it goes away before the 2.6.27 merge window, great. But I don't see that happening, so let's clean up this horror. I cc'd all the people effected in the hope that it will prod some of them towards mutexes anyway. > (And I also really hate the name down_try, but when it goes away that's > rather void and we can spare the discussion) Ideas? down() is pretty bad, down_try() matches it. Thanks, Rusty. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe reiserfs-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
