From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Suparna Bhattacharya Subject: Re: [FSAIO][PATCH 6/8] Enable asynchronous wait page and lock page Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2006 20:17:17 +0530 Message-ID: <20061228144717.GA10156@in.ibm.com> References: <20061227153855.GA25898@in.ibm.com> <20061228082308.GA4476@in.ibm.com> <20061228084149.GF6971@in.ibm.com> <20061228115510.GA25644@infradead.org> Reply-To: suparna@in.ibm.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from e31.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.149]:58046 "EHLO e31.co.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753561AbWL1Om5 (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Dec 2006 09:42:57 -0500 To: Christoph Hellwig , 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 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20061228115510.GA25644@infradead.org> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org 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, ¤t->__wait.wait) > > +#define lock_page_slow(page) __lock_page_slow(page, ¤t->__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