Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756946AbbEVLeJ (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 May 2015 07:34:09 -0400 Received: from verein.lst.de ([213.95.11.211]:33210 "EHLO newverein.lst.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755849AbbEVLeH (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 May 2015 07:34:07 -0400 Date: Fri, 22 May 2015 13:34:04 +0200 From: Christoph Hellwig To: "Nicholas A. Bellinger" Cc: Christoph Hellwig , "Nicholas A. Bellinger" , target-devel , linux-scsi , linux-kernel , Hannes Reinecke , Sagi Grimberg , "Paul E. McKenney" Subject: Re: [PATCH-v2 2/9] target/pr: Use atomic bitop for se_dev_entry->pr_reg reservation check Message-ID: <20150522113404.GB28758@lst.de> References: <1432275071-28882-1-git-send-email-nab@daterainc.com> <1432275071-28882-3-git-send-email-nab@daterainc.com> <20150522082614.GA24640@lst.de> <1432285557.898.28.camel@haakon3.risingtidesystems.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1432285557.898.28.camel@haakon3.risingtidesystems.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1603 Lines: 37 On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 02:05:57AM -0700, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote: > On Fri, 2015-05-22 at 10:26 +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 06:11:04AM +0000, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote: > > > + clear_bit(1, &orig->pr_reg); > > > > Can you call it ->flags and give the bit a meaningful name? > > The bit is signaling if se_dev_entry has a PR registration active. > > I don't see how ->flags is a more meaningful name without other bits > defined. It's pretty normal style: define a flags variable for any sort of bitops state that might show up, and then give the actual bits a meaningful name. There's almost no users of using a magic numberic value with atomic bitops. Besides being the usual and thus easier to read style it's also good future proofing. > > It would be good to just sort out the registered and co variables > > here before the RCU changes, as in: > > > > http://git.infradead.org/users/hch/scsi.git/commitdiff/6372d9f62c83acb30d051387c40deb4dbdcaa376 > > Why not just keep this patch squashed into the relevant commit in the > context of the larger RCU conversion..? Because the logic in and aroudn core_scsi3_pr_seq_non_holder right now is rather confusing. So before doing changes to it it's better to clean it up first, document that cleanup in a standalon patch and then apply the logic change on top. -- 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/