On Thursday 22 May 2008 03:04:58 Daniel Walker wrote:
quoted text
> On Wed, 2008-05-21 at 17:56 +1000, Rusty Russell wrote:
> > Subject: [PATCH] Introduce down_try()
> >
> > I planned on removing the much-disliked down_trylock() (with its
> > backwards return codes) in 2.6.27, but it's creating something of a
> > logjam with other patches in -mm and linux-next.
> >
> > Andrew suggested introducing "down_try" as a wrapper now, to make
> > the transition easier.
>
> I must be missing something critical, but what's the logjam this is
> causing?
>
> Daniel

The patches to change down_trylock to down_try touch a heap of files, which 
are also touched in other people's trees.  If this patch goes upstream, those 
people rewriting that code can use down_try in their rewrite, and I can throw 
mine away.

Cheers,
Rusty.
--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/