the real needs of just_schedule
 

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 *);
+
/* writeback.h requires fs.h; it, too, is not included from here. */
static inline void wait_on_inode(struct inode *inode)
{
might_sleep();
- wait_on_bit(&inode->i_state, __I_LOCK, inode_wait,
+ wait_on_bit(&inode->i_state, __I_LOCK, just_schedule,
TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
}
static inline void inode_sync_wait(struct inode *inode)
{
might_sleep();
- wait_on_bit(&inode->i_state, __I_SYNC, inode_wait,
+ wait_on_bit(&inode->i_state, __I_SYNC, just_schedule,
TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
}

--
1.5.5.1

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.

the real needs of just_schedule
 

On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 9:11 PM, Steven Whitehouse <swhiteho@redhat.com> wrote:
> 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?
The inode_wait in fs core code(fs/inode.c) is really just_schedule, so
is the gdlm_ast_wait, and they are all fs related code;

But inode_wait is not a better name for its work, instead just_schedule won.

So I should ask for opinions from fs core crew,

BTW, today I did a grep among the whole kernel tree and found that
just_schedule is also useful to other code, such as:

key_wait_bit(security/keys/request_key.c:25)

It's also really a just_schedule.

So just_schedule should go to lib/ ? Or we just append it into kernel/sched.c?

>
> Steve.

--
Denis Cheng