Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 18 May 2009 13:29:08 +0200 | From | Cornelia Huck <> | Subject | Re: [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.
| |