On Mon, Jun 20, 2005 at 09:54:04PM +0530, Suparna Bhattacharya wrote:
> In order to allow for interruptible and asynchronous versions of
> lock_page in conjunction with the wait_on_bit changes, we need to
> define low-level lock page routines which take an additional
> argument, i.e a wait queue entry and may return non-zero status,
> e.g -EINTR, -EIOCBRETRY, -EWOULDBLOCK etc. This patch renames
> __lock_page to lock_page_slow, so that __lock_page and
> __lock_page_slow can denote the versions which take a wait queue
> parameter.
How many users that don't use a waitqueue parameter will be left
once all AIO patches go in?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
| |
 |