From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: Daniel Wagner <daniel.wagner@bmw-carit.de>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org,
Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@windriver.com>,
Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/4] wait.[ch]: Introduce the simple waitqueue (swait) implementation
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 11:33:04 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20151118103304.GD3816@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.11.1511041124530.4032@nanos>
On Wed, Nov 04, 2015 at 11:33:51AM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Oct 2015, Daniel Wagner wrote:
> > +
> > +extern void swake_up(struct swait_queue_head *q);
> > +extern void swake_up_all(struct swait_queue_head *q);
> > +extern void swake_up_locked(struct swait_queue_head *q);
>
> I intentionally named these functions swait_wake* in my initial
> implementation for two reasons:
>
> - typoing wake_up vs. swake_up only emits a compiler warning and does
> not break the build
-Werror ftw, but yes good point.
> - I really prefer new infrastructure to have a consistent prefix
> which reflects the "subsystem". That's simpler to read and simpler
> to grep for.
I generally agree, but seeing how this is really an 'extension' of
existing infrastructure, I went along with this.
> > +extern void __prepare_to_swait(struct swait_queue_head *q, struct swait_queue *wait);
> > +extern void prepare_to_swait(struct swait_queue_head *q, struct swait_queue *wait, int state);
> > +extern long prepare_to_swait_event(struct swait_queue_head *q, struct swait_queue *wait, int state);
> > +
> > +extern void __finish_swait(struct swait_queue_head *q, struct swait_queue *wait);
> > +extern void finish_swait(struct swait_queue_head *q, struct swait_queue *wait);
>
> Can we please go with the original names?
>
> swait_prepare()
> swait_prepare_locked()
> swait_finish()
> swait_finish_locked()
>
> Hmm?
>
> > +#define swait_event(wq, condition) \
>
> Here we have the same swait vs. wait problem as above. So either we
> come up with a slightly different name or have an explicit type check
> in __swait_event event.
Type check macros, otherwise you break the naming scheme you so
adamantly push for (or end up with horrid stuff like
swait_wait_event()).
I suppose we can do the rename as you propose to avoid single letter
typoes, but it does bug me to have two nearly identical bits of infra
with such dissimilar names.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-11-18 10:33 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-10-20 7:28 [PATCH v3 0/4] Simple wait queue support Daniel Wagner
2015-10-20 7:28 ` [PATCH v3 1/4] wait.[ch]: Introduce the simple waitqueue (swait) implementation Daniel Wagner
2015-10-26 12:04 ` Boqun Feng
2015-10-26 12:28 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-10-26 12:59 ` Daniel Wagner
2015-10-26 13:26 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-10-26 14:19 ` Boqun Feng
2015-11-04 10:33 ` Thomas Gleixner
2015-11-04 12:12 ` Daniel Wagner
2015-11-18 10:33 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2015-11-18 15:07 ` Thomas Gleixner
2015-10-20 7:28 ` [PATCH v3 2/4] KVM: use simple waitqueue for vcpu->wq Daniel Wagner
2015-10-20 13:11 ` Paolo Bonzini
2015-10-20 14:00 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-10-20 15:40 ` Paolo Bonzini
2015-10-20 16:06 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-10-21 8:55 ` Paul Mackerras
2015-10-21 9:05 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-10-21 9:10 ` Paul Mackerras
2015-10-21 9:24 ` Paul Mackerras
2015-10-21 11:13 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-10-23 11:51 ` Daniel Wagner
2015-10-20 7:28 ` [PATCH v3 3/4] rcu: Do not call rcu_nocb_gp_cleanup() while holding rnp->lock Daniel Wagner
2015-10-20 7:28 ` [PATCH v3 4/4] rcu: use simple wait queues where possible in rcutree Daniel Wagner
2015-10-25 20:10 ` [PATCH v3 0/4] Simple wait queue support Paul E. McKenney
2015-10-26 6:34 ` Daniel Wagner
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20151118103304.GD3816@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=daniel.wagner@bmw-carit.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=mtosatti@redhat.com \
--cc=paul.gortmaker@windriver.com \
--cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.