lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [May]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] kernel/async.c:introduce async_schedule*_atomic
On Sun, 17 May 2009 13:59:40 -0700,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org> wrote:

> On Wed, 13 May 2009 09:47:28 +0200
> Cornelia Huck <cornelia.huck@de.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 13 May 2009 03:20:13 +0200,
> > Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 08:28:15AM +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> >
> > > > Also we still allow async_schedule*() to run a job synchronously
> > > > if out of memory
> > > > or other failure. This can keep consistency with before.
> > >
> > >
> > > Yes, but also most of the current users of async_schedule() could
> > > call it with GFP_KERNEL. For now it's not an issue because it is
> > > not widely used, but who knows how that will evolve...
> >
> > Well, if we want to change the interface, now would be a good time
> > since there are still few callers.
>
> I would prefer it that if we make a more complex interface, we keep the
> current simple interface as a wrapper, so that the simple case can
> remain simple.

Of course. I was just thinking about changing the semantics of
async_schedule() to doing GFP_KERNEL allocation - now it's still easy
to audit all callers.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-05-18 13:33    [W:0.054 / U:0.272 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site