Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] fs: Abstract calling the kiocb completion function
To:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
Cc:     linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-aio@kvack.org, io-uring@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Kanchan Joshi <joshi.k@samsung.com>,
        Javier Gonzalez <javier.gonz@samsung.com>
References: <20200708222637.23046-1-willy@infradead.org>
 <20200708222637.23046-2-willy@infradead.org>
 <983baa4b-55c6-0988-9e43-6860937957b4@kernel.dk>
 <20200708224034.GX25523@casper.infradead.org>
From:   Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
Message-ID: <5331c3ef-f755-f4ed-f0be-c10da418dc80@kernel.dk>
Date:   Wed, 8 Jul 2020 16:50:47 -0600
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/68.10.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20200708224034.GX25523@casper.infradead.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 7/8/20 4:40 PM, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 08, 2020 at 04:37:21PM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> On 7/8/20 4:26 PM, Matthew Wilcox (Oracle) wrote:
>>> diff --git a/crypto/af_alg.c b/crypto/af_alg.c
>>> index b1cd3535c525..590dbbcd0e9f 100644
>>> --- a/crypto/af_alg.c
>>> +++ b/crypto/af_alg.c
>>> @@ -1045,7 +1045,7 @@ void af_alg_async_cb(struct crypto_async_request *_req, int err)
>>>  	af_alg_free_resources(areq);
>>>  	sock_put(sk);
>>>  
>>> -	iocb->ki_complete(iocb, err ? err : (int)resultlen, 0);
>>> +	complete_kiocb(iocb, err ? err : (int)resultlen, 0);
>>
>> I'd prefer having it called kiocb_complete(), seems more in line with
>> what you'd expect in terms of naming for an exported interface.
> 
> Happy to make that change.  It seemed like you preferred the opposite
> way round with is_sync_kiocb() and init_sync_kiocb() already existing.
> 
> Should I switch register_kiocb_completion and unregister_kiocb_completion
> to kiocb_completion_register or kiocb_register_completion?

I prefer the latter here, as per the other email. But as long as kiocb_
is the prefix, I don't really care that much. The latter is how you'd
say it to, while the former sounds a bit yoda'ish.

-- 
Jens Axboe