[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

[Cluster-devel] Re: [PATCH 1/2] [fs-devel] the real needs of just_schedule



Hi,

On Wed, 2008-05-07 at 01:51 +0800, Denis Cheng wrote:
> there are some situations which really need a just schedule,
> with int return value;
> and this should be moved into lib/ in the future.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Denis Cheng <crquan gmail com>
> ---
>  fs/inode.c                |    2 +-
>  include/linux/writeback.h |   16 ++++++++++++----
>  2 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/fs/inode.c b/fs/inode.c
> index bf64781..b355a44 100644
> --- a/fs/inode.c
> +++ b/fs/inode.c
> @@ -1291,7 +1291,7 @@ int inode_needs_sync(struct inode *inode)
>  
>  EXPORT_SYMBOL(inode_needs_sync);
>  
> -int inode_wait(void *word)
> +int just_schedule(void *word)
>  {
>  	schedule();
>  	return 0;
> diff --git a/include/linux/writeback.h b/include/linux/writeback.h
> index f462439..80ff5eb 100644
> --- a/include/linux/writeback.h
> +++ b/include/linux/writeback.h
> @@ -67,23 +67,31 @@ struct writeback_control {
>  
>  /*
>   * fs/fs-writeback.c
> - */	
> + */
>  void writeback_inodes(struct writeback_control *wbc);
> -int inode_wait(void *);
>  void sync_inodes_sb(struct super_block *, int wait);
>  void sync_inodes(int wait);
>  
> +/*
> + * fs/inode.c
> + *
> + * there are some situations which really need a just schedule,
> + * with int return value;
> + * and this should be moved into lib/ in the future.
> + */
> +int just_schedule(void *);
> +
Why is now not a good time? :-)

The patches look ok to me otherwise, but I wonder whether I should put
them in my tree (since they affect core code) or whether they'd be
better in -mm and/or linux-next?

Steve.



[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]