Messages in this thread | | | From | Rusty Russell <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 18/57] iTCO: unlocked_ioctl, coding style and cleanup | Date | Wed, 21 May 2008 14:58:57 +1000 |
| |
On Wednesday 21 May 2008 14:36:54 Andrew Morton wrote: > On Wed, 21 May 2008 14:26:15 +1000 Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au> wrote: > > > decent-sized smashup during the merge window. There are lessons > > > here... > > > > I've been pulling out s/down_trylock/down_nowait/ patches which effect > > others' changes. Those patches get moved to the end of my queue, and > > I'll revisit them before an actual merge with Linus. > > > > As down_trylock still works (but marked deprecated) with my patches, > > they're fine to drop. Just tell me which ones... > > Well, a simple patch which does > > /* > * comment goes here > */ > static inline int __must_check down_nowait(struct semaphore *sem) > { > return !down_trylock(sem); > } > > and which does not deprecate down_trylock() could go into mainline > right now
Sure, in this case it's probably worth it.
> , (assuming that the overall concept doesn't get shot down in > review - did it get reviewed?)
Well, it got some commentry on lkml, mainly from Christoph H. He was the one who came up with "down_nowait" vs the original "down_try".
> Then you can start trickling stuff out to people straight away.
OK, I'll send a patch now.
Thanks, Rusty.
| |