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;
Date:   Mon, 26 Apr 2021 14:08:17 -0400
From:   Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com>
To:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
Cc:     linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org,
        dan.j.williams@intel.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        virtio-fs@redhat.com, miklos@szeredi.hu, jack@suse.cz,
        slp@redhat.com, groug@kaod.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/3] dax: Add an enum for specifying dax wakup mode
Message-ID: <20210426180817.GF1741690@redhat.com>
References: <20210423130723.1673919-1-vgoyal@redhat.com>
 <20210423130723.1673919-2-vgoyal@redhat.com>
 <20210426134632.GM235567@casper.infradead.org>
 <20210426175217.GD1741690@redhat.com>
 <20210426180211.GP235567@casper.infradead.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20210426180211.GP235567@casper.infradead.org>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 07:02:11PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 01:52:17PM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 02:46:32PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > > On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 09:07:21AM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> > > > +enum dax_wake_mode {
> > > > +	WAKE_NEXT,
> > > > +	WAKE_ALL,
> > > > +};
> > > 
> > > Why define them in this order when ...
> > > 
> > > > @@ -196,7 +207,7 @@ static void dax_wake_entry(struct xa_state *xas, void *entry, bool wake_all)
> > > >  	 * must be in the waitqueue and the following check will see them.
> > > >  	 */
> > > >  	if (waitqueue_active(wq))
> > > > -		__wake_up(wq, TASK_NORMAL, wake_all ? 0 : 1, &key);
> > > > +		__wake_up(wq, TASK_NORMAL, mode == WAKE_ALL ? 0 : 1, &key);
> > > 
> > > ... they're used like this?  This is almost as bad as
> > > 
> > > enum bool {
> > > 	true,
> > > 	false,
> > > };
> > 
> > Hi Matthew,
> > 
> > So you prefer that I should switch order of WAKE_NEXT and WAKE_ALL? 
> > 
> > enum dax_wake_mode {
> > 	WAKE_ALL,
> > 	WAKE_NEXT,
> > };
> 
> That, yes.
> 
> > And then do following to wake task.
> > 
> > if (waitqueue_active(wq))
> > 	__wake_up(wq, TASK_NORMAL, mode, &key);
> 
> No, the third argument to __wake_up() is a count, not an enum.  It just so
> happens that '0' means 'all' and we only ever wake up 1 and not, say, 5.
> So the logical way to define the enum is ALL, NEXT which _just happens
> to match_ the usage of __wake_up().

Ok, In that case, I will retain existing code.

__wake_up(wq, TASK_NORMAL, mode == WAKE_ALL ? 0 : 1, &key);

Vivek