Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1753887AbdC1Qjd (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Tue, 28 Mar 2017 12:39:33 -0400
Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:56390 "EHLO mx2.suse.de"
        rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
        id S1751868AbdC1Qjb (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Tue, 28 Mar 2017 12:39:31 -0400
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2017 09:39:18 -0700
From: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>
To: Laurent Dufour <ldufour@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: mingo@kernel.org, peterz@infradead.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
        jack@suse.cz, kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com, mhocko@suse.com,
        mgorman@techsingularity.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@suse.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] locking: Introduce range reader/writer lock
Message-ID: <20170328163918.GA27446@linux-80c1.suse>
References: <1488863010-13028-1-git-send-email-dave@stgolabs.net>
 <1488863010-13028-2-git-send-email-dave@stgolabs.net>
 <2f7628f4-58e1-22c4-ccbe-3106c15cb405@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <2f7628f4-58e1-22c4-ccbe-3106c15cb405@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1167
Lines: 43

On Tue, 28 Mar 2017, Laurent Dufour wrote:
>> +#define __RANGE_RWLOCK_INITIALIZER(start, last) {	\
>> +		.node = {			\
>> +			.start = (start)	\
>> +			,.last = (last)		\
>> +		}				\
>> +	}
>
>Hi Davidlohr,
>
>This macro doesn't expand correctly because the field name ".start" is
>replaced by the start parameter. Should rather be :
>
>#define __RANGE_RWLOCK_INITIALIZER(__start, __last) {	\
>		.node = {			\
>			.start = (__start)	\
>			,.last = (__last)	\
>		}				\
>	}
>
>By the way, should the other fields set as in __range_rwlock_init() ?

Indeed.

>> +/*
>> + * lock for writing
>> + */
>> +void range_write_lock(struct range_rwlock_tree *tree, struct range_rwlock *lock);
>> +int range_write_lock_interruptible(struct range_rwlock_tree *tree,
>> +				   struct range_rwlock *lock);
>> +int range_write_lock_killable(struct range_rwlock_tree *tree,
>> +			      struct range_rwlock *lock);
>> +int range_read_trylock(struct range_rwlock_tree *tree, struct range_rwlock *lock);
>             ^^^^
>      range_write_trylock(...) isn't it ?
>

Duh, yeah.

I'll wait to see if there are any more concerns and send a v2 with your corrections.

Thanks,
Davidlohr