Re: [PATCH 1/1] Replace down_trylock() with down_try(), reverse return values.

[Rusty Russell]

On Monday 05 May 2008 15:58:23 Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, May 05, 2008 at 01:56:35AM +0000, Rusty Russell wrote:
> > down_trylock() returns 1 on failure, 0 on success.  This differs from
> > spin_trylock(), mutex_trylock() and common sense.  Or as ocfs2 put it
> > "kernel 1, world 0".
> >
> > Rename it to down_try() (which makes more sense anyway), and reverse
> > it.  Fortunately there aren't a huge number of callers left.
>
> Given that people are actively trying to kill struct semaphore I don't
> think doing a big search and rename is a good idea right now.

If it goes away before the 2.6.27 merge window, great.  But I don't see that 
happening, so let's clean up this horror.  I cc'd all the people effected in 
the hope that it will prod some of them towards mutexes anyway.

> (And I also really hate the name down_try, but when it goes away that's
>  rather void and we can spare the discussion)

Ideas?  down() is pretty bad, down_try() matches it.

Thanks,
Rusty.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/