On Wed, 2006-06-21 at 20:40 +1000, Peter Williams wrote:
> Matt Helsley wrote:
> > On Wed, 2006-06-21 at 02:07 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> >> On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 01:35:29 -0700
> >> Matt Helsley <[email protected]> wrote:
<snip>
> >>> Alternately,
> >>> I could produce patches that apply on top of the current set.
> >> It depends on how many of the existing patches are affected. If it's just
> >> one or two then an increment would be fine. If it's everything then a new
> >> patchset I guess.
> >
> > It would affect most of them -- I'd need to change the bits that
> > register a notifier block. So I'll make a separate series.
>
> How about making WATCH_TASK_INIT and friends flags so that clients can
> then pass a mask (probably part of the notifier_block) that specifies
> which ones they wish to be notified of. This would save unnecessary
> function calls.
>
> Peter
Yes, I was considering that. However, I realized that it still would
involve either multiple notifier blocks or significant, non-intuitive
changes in the notifier chain code so that one notifier block could be
registered on multiple chains.
I'll keep this suggestion in mind.
Cheers,
-Matt Helsley
-
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]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
