From: Matt H. <mat...@us...> - 2006-06-21 21:37:43
|
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 <mat...@us...> 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 |