From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Message-ID: <5792856D.7070508@hpe.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2016 16:43:25 -0400
From: Waiman Long <waiman.long@hpe.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
CC: Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.com>,
	Jeff Layton <jlayton@poochiereds.net>,
	"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org>,
	Christoph Lameter <cl@linux-foundation.org>,
	<linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>,
	Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com>,
	Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>,
	Scott J Norton <scott.norton@hpe.com>,
	Douglas Hatch <doug.hatch@hpe.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/4] lib/dlock-list: Distributed and lock-protected
 lists
References: <1468604383-40362-1-git-send-email-Waiman.Long@hpe.com> <1468604383-40362-2-git-send-email-Waiman.Long@hpe.com> <20160718233803.GN3078@mtj.duckdns.org> <578E7497.30602@hpe.com>
In-Reply-To: <578E7497.30602@hpe.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org>

On 07/19/2016 02:42 PM, Waiman Long wrote:
> On 07/18/2016 07:38 PM, Tejun Heo wrote:
>
>
>>> +/*
>>> + * include/linux/dlock-list.h
>>> + *
>>> + * A distributed (per-cpu) set of lists each of which is protected 
>>> by its
>>> + * own spinlock, but acts like a single consolidated list to the 
>>> callers.
>>> + *
>>> + * The dlock_list_head_percpu structure contains the spinlock, the 
>>> other
>>> + * dlock_list_node structures only contains a pointer to the 
>>> spinlock in
>>> + * dlock_list_head_percpu.
>>> + */
>> The more I think about it, the more bothered I'm about the dlock_list
>> name.  For the most part, this isn't different from other percpu data
>> structures in the kernel.  Sure, it might benefit from doing Nth cpu,
>> but so are other percpu data structures and it's not just "distributed
>> lock" list either.  The list itself is percpu, not just locking.  Can
>> we please go back to percpu_list?  Christoph, what do you think?
>>
>
> As I said before, I don't mind reverting the name back to percpu_list. 
> I am just waiting for a final agreement.
>

I have just sent out an update dlock-list patch that incorporates all 
the feedbacks that I got so far except the name change. I will be on 
vacation next week. After I come back, we can continue our discussion if 
the name should be reverted back to percpu_list or not.

Cheers,
Longman