Re: [PATCH] Introduce down_nowait()

From: Rusty Russell
Date: Thu May 22 2008 - 20:52:46 EST

On Friday 23 May 2008 01:48:43 Daniel Walker wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-05-22 at 18:56 +1000, Rusty Russell wrote:
> > The patches to change down_trylock to down_try touch a heap of files,
> > which are also touched in other people's trees. If this patch goes
> > upstream, those people rewriting that code can use down_try in their
> > rewrite, and I can throw mine away.
> Seems like it's too much trouble.. I mean, we're removing semaphores
> anyway and down_trylock with them. I'll agree with Andrew down_trylock
> removal is pretty glacial. It's cause there aren't many of them and most
> of the ones I've looked at are in strange locking schemes, which makes
> them difficult to remove..

Frankly, I agree. I did this patchset assuming it would be trivial, and it
really is. We've spent more time discussing it here than spent coding it in
the first place and handling the conflicts.

> I'm not against your changes, but if it's going to cause problems I'd
> rather people focus on mutex_trylock instead.

Yes, but Stephen seems to have no problems with the conflicts. He knows the
removal patches override my patches, and if I miss any down_trylock()s, it
simply means a deprecated warning. The onus is on me to solve anything else.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at