Messages in this thread | | | From | Changli Gao <> | Date | Fri, 7 May 2010 10:48:05 +0800 | Subject | Re: [PATCH] epoll: use wrapper functions |
| |
On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 2:51 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote: > On Thu, 2010-05-06 at 11:47 -0700, Davide Libenzi wrote: >> Since we already have __add_wait_queue(), __add_wait_queue_tail() and >> __remove_wait_queue() (which all means "locked"), and while I agree in >> having the exclusive-add wrapped into a function, I much better prefer a: >> >> static inline void __add_wait_queue_excl(wait_queue_head_t *head, >> wait_queue_t *new) >> { >> new->flags |= WQ_FLAG_EXCLUSIVE; >> __add_wait_queue(head, new); >> } >> >> The patch you posted introduces a different naming, which leaves all the >> other __*() untouched, and wraps the already one-liner __remove_wait_queue() >> with yet another one-liner. > > I concur, I always get confused by the _locked postfix (and its more > typing). Also, it goes against the lock data not code paradigm. > >
I greped all the code, and found that add_wait_queue_head_exclusive_locked() and remove_wait_queue_locked() aren't used. It seems that no users like these APIs. So I will remove these two APIs, and add __add_wait_queue_excl() instead. Thanks.
-- Regards, Changli Gao(xiaosuo@gmail.com) -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |