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

[Rusty Russell]

On Monday 05 May 2008 16:12:17 Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, May 05, 2008 at 04:09:12PM +1000, Rusty Russell wrote:
> > > 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.
>
> .27 might not be doable but .28 seems probable if willy and co are
> continuing to churn like they do currently.

I didn't think he was killing them all, just the ones which are actually mutex 
wannabes?

> > Ideas?  down() is pretty bad, down_try() matches it.
>
> The trylock is a convention for real locking function, so having one
> stand out would be nasty.  Then again a semaphore is not just a simple
> lock but a higher level locking primitive, so a down_nowait might make
> sense because we don't encode the lock anywhere else either

Yep, down_nowait() it is.  I'll roll a new one if willy isn't going to get rid 
of them all.

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/