From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755435AbZAaDvY (ORCPT ); Fri, 30 Jan 2009 22:51:24 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751618AbZAaDvQ (ORCPT ); Fri, 30 Jan 2009 22:51:16 -0500 Received: from x35.xmailserver.org ([64.71.152.41]:40371 "EHLO x35.xmailserver.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750779AbZAaDvQ (ORCPT ); Fri, 30 Jan 2009 22:51:16 -0500 X-AuthUser: davidel@xmailserver.org Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 19:50:56 -0800 (PST) From: Davide Libenzi X-X-Sender: davide@alien.or.mcafeemobile.com To: Ingo Molnar cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List , Andrew Morton , Linus Torvalds , Alan Cox , David Miller Subject: Re: [patch 3/7] epoll keyed wakeups - introduce key-aware wakeup macros In-Reply-To: <20090131033035.GA26640@elte.hu> Message-ID: References: <20090131033035.GA26640@elte.hu> User-Agent: Alpine 1.10 (DEB 962 2008-03-14) X-GPG-FINGRPRINT: CFAE 5BEE FD36 F65E E640 56FE 0974 BF23 270F 474E X-GPG-PUBLIC_KEY: http://www.xmailserver.org/davidel.asc MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, 31 Jan 2009, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Davide Libenzi wrote: > > > +#define wake_up(x) kwake_up(x, NULL) > > +#define wake_up_nr(x, nr) kwake_up_nr(x, nr, NULL) > > +#define wake_up_all(x) kwake_up_all(x, NULL) > > +#define wake_up_locked(x) kwake_up_locked(x, NULL) > > + > > +#define wake_up_interruptible(x) kwake_up_interruptible(x, NULL) > > +#define wake_up_interruptible_nr(x, nr) kwake_up_interruptible_nr(x, nr, NULL) > > +#define wake_up_interruptible_all(x) kwake_up_interruptible_all(x, NULL) > > +#define wake_up_interruptible_sync(x) kwake_up_interruptible_sync(x, NULL) > > i like the patchset - nice work! > > One minor worry i have: these wakeup calls are _very_ common in the > kernel, and this patch adds an extra parameter to it that is unused (NULL) > in 99% of the cases. > > Would be nice to see the kernel image size increase due to this change > (which gives a good measure about how much of an issue this is). > > If it's of any worrying level, it might make sense to keep the original > functions untouched, and introduce a second entry point that has one more > parameter. Ok? Fine by me. Any preference for names? - Davide