Re: poll: allow f_op->poll to sleep, take #3

[Tejun Heo]

Brad Boyer wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 12:05:53PM +0900, Tejun Heo wrote:
>> I thought try_to_wake_up() was made static to avoid abuse but then again
>> creating dummy waitqueue is an obvious abuse of waitqueue.  What do
>> other people think?  I'll be happy to use try_to_wake_up() directly.
> 
> Do you need all the extra arguments? The function wake_up_process()
> is already a wrapper around try_to_wake_up() and is exported, but
> it doesn't have any arguments other than the task_struct and uses
> defaults for the other arguments. I'm not sure if anything in your
> code would break by ignoring the other possible values instead of
> passing them along from the arguments into the caller.

Hmmm... there was something which made wake_up_process() inappropriate.
 Ah, okay, it was @mode.  We can add a WARN_ON() if @mode is an
unexpected value and use a fixed one - TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE or TASK_ALL -
but that's even hackier than the waitqueue hack.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun
--
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/