Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2006 20:17:17 +0530
From: Suparna Bhattacharya <suparna@in.ibm.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>, linux-aio@kvack.org, akpm@osdl.org,
       drepper@redhat.com, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, jakub@redhat.com, mingo@elte.hu
Subject: Re: [FSAIO][PATCH 6/8] Enable asynchronous wait page and lock page
Message-ID: <20061228144717.GA10156@in.ibm.com>
Reply-To: suparna@in.ibm.com
References: <20061227153855.GA25898@in.ibm.com> <20061228082308.GA4476@in.ibm.com> <20061228084149.GF6971@in.ibm.com> <20061228115510.GA25644@infradead.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20061228115510.GA25644@infradead.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2223
Lines: 59

On Thu, Dec 28, 2006 at 11:55:10AM +0000, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 28, 2006 at 02:11:49PM +0530, Suparna Bhattacharya wrote:
> > -extern void FASTCALL(lock_page_slow(struct page *page));
> > +extern int FASTCALL(__lock_page_slow(struct page *page, wait_queue_t *wait));
> >  extern void FASTCALL(__lock_page_nosync(struct page *page));
> >  extern void FASTCALL(unlock_page(struct page *page));
> >
> >  /*
> >   * lock_page may only be called if we have the page's inode pinned.
> >   */
> > -static inline void lock_page(struct page *page)
> > +static inline int __lock_page(struct page *page, wait_queue_t *wait)
> >  {
> >  	might_sleep();
> >  	if (TestSetPageLocked(page))
> > -		lock_page_slow(page);
> > +		return __lock_page_slow(page, wait);
> > +	return 0;
> >  }
> >
> > +#define lock_page(page)		__lock_page(page, &current->__wait.wait)
> > +#define lock_page_slow(page)	__lock_page_slow(page, &current->__wait.wait)
> 
> Can we please simply kill your lock_page_slow wrapper and rename the
> arguments taking __lock_page_slow to lock_page_slow?  All too many
> variants of the locking functions aren't all that useful and there's
> very few users.

OK.

> 
> Similarly I don't really think __lock_page is an all that useful name here.
> What about lock_page_wq?  or aio_lock_page to denote it has special

I am really bad with names :(  I tried using the _wq suffixes earlier and
that seemed confusing to some, but if no one else objects I'm happy to use
that. I thought aio_lock_page() might be misleading because it is
synchronous if a regular wait queue entry is passed in, but again it may not
be too bad.

What's your preference ? Does anything more intuitive come to mind ?

> meaning in aio contect?  Then again because of these special sematics
> we need a bunch of really verbose kerneldoc comments for this function
> famility.

Regards
Suparna

-- 
Suparna Bhattacharya (suparna@in.ibm.com)
Linux Technology Center
IBM Software Lab, India

-
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/