From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Oleg Nesterov Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/8] introduce __sb_{acquire,release}_write() helpers Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2015 15:17:44 +0200 Message-ID: <20150813131744.GA15609@redhat.com> References: <20150811170343.GA26881@redhat.com> <20150811170358.GA26901@redhat.com> <20150813094552.GC26599@quack.suse.cz> <20150813095617.GD26599@quack.suse.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Al Viro , Dave Chinner , Dave Hansen , "Paul E. McKenney" , Peter Zijlstra , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org To: Jan Kara Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150813095617.GD26599@quack.suse.cz> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On 08/13, Jan Kara wrote: > > On Thu 13-08-15 11:45:52, Jan Kara wrote: > > On Tue 11-08-15 19:03:58, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > > Preparation to hide the sb->s_writers internals from xfs and btrfs. > > > Add 2 trivial define's they can use rather than play with ->s_writers > > > directly. No changes in btrfs/transaction.o and xfs/xfs_aops.o. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov > > > > Looks good. You can add: > > > > Reviewed-by: Jan Kara > > One comment when looking at other patches - I'd prefer somewhat better name > than __sb_acquire_write(). Yes, __sb_acquire_write() doesn't look nice and I agree with any naming. > It doesn't tell that it's only a trylock > acquisition. Maybe something like But it is not actually "trylock"... This lock was already locked but not by us. __sb_release_write + __sb_acquire_write is used to transfer the ownership, > __sb_writers_acquire_nowait() > > and then > > __sb_writers_release()? so I agree with any naming, I'll update this patch... but perhaps __sb_writers_acquire() without "_nowait" make more sense? Oleg.