On Tue, 29 Jul 2008, Rusty Russell wrote:
quoted text
> 
> Introduce down_try()

I hate that name. Everybody else uses "xxx_trylock()", now you introduce a 
short version of that that just has the same return value as everybody 
else except for semaphores that admittedly were odd.

Also, all actual _users_ of down_trylock() seem to be prime candidates for 
turning into mutexes anyway - with the _possible_ exception of the console 
semaphore which has problems with the mutex debugging code.

quoted text
> 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.

The transition to WHAT? To crap?

There is no need to introduce yet another temporary thing just to make 
things even _more_ confusing.

Yeah, I'm grumpy. I'm always pretty grumpy, but I'm trying to go through 
some backlog where I had been going "hmm, why would I do this", and this 
one wasn't the only one where my reaction was "if I pull/apply this, the 
end result is worse".

Guys, some quality control and critical thinking, please.

			Linus
--
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/