Re: [PATCH 1/2] Introduce mutex_lock_timeout

[Andrew Vasquez]

On Thu, 09 Nov 2006, Matthew Wilcox wrote:

> We have a couple of places in the tree that really could do with a
> down_timeout() function.  I noticed it in qla2xxx and ACPI, but maybe
> there are others that don't have the courtesy of putting "I wish we had
> a down_timeout" comment beside their implementation.

I'm testing this with qla2xxx...  btw: there's a minor cut-n-paste
error in the x86_64 variant where you forgot a ',' (comma).

> diff --git a/include/asm-x86_64/mutex.h b/include/asm-x86_64/mutex.h
> index 16396b1..18668fa 100644
> --- a/include/asm-x86_64/mutex.h
> +++ b/include/asm-x86_64/mutex.h
> @@ -46,11 +46,11 @@ do {									\
>   * or anything the slow path function returns
>   */
>  static inline int
> -__mutex_fastpath_lock_retval(atomic_t *count,
> -			     int fastcall (*fail_fn)(atomic_t *))
> +__mutex_fastpath_lock_retval(atomic_t *count, long jiffies
> +			     int fastcall (*fail_fn)(atomic_t *, long))

should be:

	+__mutex_fastpath_lock_retval(atomic_t *count, long jiffies,
	+			     int fastcall (*fail_fn)(atomic_t *, long))
-
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/