From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Frank Mayhar <fmayhar@google.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 1/2] kernel: introduce brlock
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2010 13:12:28 -0700
Message-ID: <1268770348.1135.17.camel@bobble.smo.corp.google.com>
References: <20100316122213.GP2869@laptop>
	 <C5663A28-9BC3-4906-89E6-3A2BCE11ECB4@sun.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de>, Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>,
	John Stultz <johnstul@us.ibm.com>,
	Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
To: Andreas Dilger <adilger@sun.com>
Return-path: <linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from smtp-out.google.com ([74.125.121.35]:27566 "EHLO
	smtp-out.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1756562Ab0CPU0j (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Tue, 16 Mar 2010 16:26:39 -0400
In-Reply-To: <C5663A28-9BC3-4906-89E6-3A2BCE11ECB4@sun.com>
Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org>

On Tue, 2010-03-16 at 13:01 -0600, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> On 2010-03-16, at 06:22, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > +#define DEFINE_BRLOCK(name)						\
> > + DEFINE_PER_CPU(spinlock_t, name##_lock);				\
> > + void name##_lock_init(void) {						\
> > + void name##_wlock(void) {						\
> > + void name##_wunlock(void) {						\
> > + int name##_atomic_dec_and_wlock__failed(atomic_t *a) {		
> 
> What makes these macros unpleasant is that it is no longer possible to  
> tag to the implementation to see what it does, since there is no real  
> declaration for these locks.
> 
> Is it possible to change the macros to take the lock name as a  
> parameter, like normal lock/unlock functions do, and then have a  
> single declaration for br_lock_init(), br_wlock(), etc. macros?

This gets my vote as well.  (I've been repeatedly annoyed by some of the
buffer routines that are constructed this way.)
-- 
Frank Mayhar <fmayhar@google.com>
Google, Inc.