[PATCH 1/2] add tunable_notifier function

[Takenori Nagano]

Vivek Goyal wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 04, 2007 at 08:38:34PM +0900, Takenori Nagano wrote:
>> This patch adds new notifier function tunable_notifier_chain. Its base is
>> atomic_notifier_chain.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> ---
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Takenori Nagano <t-nagano at ah.jp.nec.com>
>>
>> ---
>> diff -uprN linux-2.6.23-rc9.orig/include/linux/notifier.h
>> linux-2.6.23-rc9/include/linux/notifier.h
>> --- linux-2.6.23-rc9.orig/include/linux/notifier.h	2007-10-02 12:24:52.000000000
>> +0900
>> +++ linux-2.6.23-rc9/include/linux/notifier.h	2007-10-03 14:48:04.288000000 +0900
>> @@ -13,6 +13,7 @@
>>  #include <linux/mutex.h>
>>  #include <linux/rwsem.h>
>>  #include <linux/srcu.h>
>> +#include <linux/kobject.h>
>>
>>  /*
>>   * Notifier chains are of four types:
>> @@ -53,6 +54,14 @@ struct notifier_block {
>>  	int priority;
>>  };
>>
>> +struct tunable_notifier_block {
>> +	struct notifier_block *nb;
>> +	struct tunable_notifier_head *head;
>> +	struct dentry *dir;
>> +	struct dentry *pri_dentry;
>> +	struct dentry *desc_dentry;
>> +};
>> +
> 
> Should this be tunable_atomic_notifier_block? I think there are two kind
> of lists. One where handlers have to be atomic and other one where handlers
> can be blocking one. I think you are making atomic one tunable. If that's
> the case it should be reflected in the naming everywhere.

Hi Vivek,

Yes, it based on atomic_notifier_list. I think your opinion is reasonable.
I'll change the name tunable_notifier to tunable_atomic_notifier.

Thanks,

Takenori Nagano <t-nagano at ah.jp.nec.com>