lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Jan]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [patch 3/7] epoll keyed wakeups - introduce key-aware wakeup macros
On Sat, 31 Jan 2009, Ingo Molnar wrote:

>
> * Davide Libenzi <davidel@xmailserver.org> wrote:
>
> > +#define wake_up(x) kwake_up(x, NULL)
> > +#define wake_up_nr(x, nr) kwake_up_nr(x, nr, NULL)
> > +#define wake_up_all(x) kwake_up_all(x, NULL)
> > +#define wake_up_locked(x) kwake_up_locked(x, NULL)
> > +
> > +#define wake_up_interruptible(x) kwake_up_interruptible(x, NULL)
> > +#define wake_up_interruptible_nr(x, nr) kwake_up_interruptible_nr(x, nr, NULL)
> > +#define wake_up_interruptible_all(x) kwake_up_interruptible_all(x, NULL)
> > +#define wake_up_interruptible_sync(x) kwake_up_interruptible_sync(x, NULL)
>
> i like the patchset - nice work!
>
> One minor worry i have: these wakeup calls are _very_ common in the
> kernel, and this patch adds an extra parameter to it that is unused (NULL)
> in 99% of the cases.
>
> Would be nice to see the kernel image size increase due to this change
> (which gives a good measure about how much of an issue this is).
>
> If it's of any worrying level, it might make sense to keep the original
> functions untouched, and introduce a second entry point that has one more
> parameter. Ok?

Fine by me. Any preference for names?



- Davide




\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-01-31 04:55    [W:0.034 / U:0.844 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site