Re: [PATCH 7/58] new helper: end_writeback()

[Boaz Harrosh <bharrosh@panasas.com>]

On 06/09/2010 04:20 PM, Al Viro wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 09, 2010 at 09:02:16AM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 08, 2010 at 11:16:02PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
>>>
>>> Essentially, the minimal variant of ->evict_inode().  It's
>>> a trimmed-down clear_inode(), sans any fs callbacks.  Once
>>> it returns we know that no async writeback will be happening;
>>> every ->evict_inode() instance should do that once and do that
>>> before doing anything ->write_inode() could interfere with
>>> (e.g. freeing the on-disk inode).
>>
>> Naming seems a bit unfortunate - this really sounds like something
>> in page writeback.  In fact I'd almost bet we had a function with
>> that name there in the past.
>>
>> Care to slap an inode_ prefix on it?
> 
> Ehh...  I'd been tempted to call it end_async or something like that.
> I'm not particulary fond of the name; any better suggestions are welcome.
> 
> The point of what's being done in that function is that it acts as a barrier;
> "wait for async activity to run down; new one won't be started since it's
> already marked I_FREEING".

It was odd for me to. I had to go look at code to understand what it's for.
I would prefer the word "wait" in the name or barrier. eg. wait_writeback.
end_writeback sounds like something you should call from ->write_end

Just my $0.017
Boaz