From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda3.sgi.com [192.48.176.15]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11/SuSE Linux 0.7) with ESMTP id mB3LrF62021964 for ; Wed, 3 Dec 2008 15:53:15 -0600 Received: from ipmail05.adl2.internode.on.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id 15AE81686C0F for ; Wed, 3 Dec 2008 13:53:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from ipmail05.adl2.internode.on.net (ipmail05.adl2.internode.on.net [203.16.214.145]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id 7wABagGIrkJ51Abv for ; Wed, 03 Dec 2008 13:53:13 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2008 08:48:09 +1100 From: Dave Chinner Subject: Re: [patch 20/22] move vn_iowait / vn_iowake into xfs_aops.c Message-ID: <20081203214809.GY18236@disturbed> References: <20081202160430.775774000@bombadil.infradead.org> <20081202160652.542003000@bombadil.infradead.org> <20081203031719.GQ18236@disturbed> <20081203105831.GB19287@infradead.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20081203105831.GB19287@infradead.org> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com On Wed, Dec 03, 2008 at 05:58:31AM -0500, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Wed, Dec 03, 2008 at 02:17:19PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 02, 2008 at 11:04:50AM -0500, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > The whole machinery to wait on I/O completion is related to the I/O path > > > and should be there instead of in xfs_vnode.c. Also give the functions > > > more descriptive names. > > > > I'm not sure that "xfs_ioend_..." is the best name - it looks > > slightly weird in some of the callers' contexts. Just dropping the > > "end" out of the names makes the code read much better (i.e. > > xfs_io_wait() and xfs_io_wake()). Not particularly important, > > though, and everything else looks good. > > xfs_ioend_* wasn't my first choice either. I first did > xfs_iowait/xfs_iowake, but that clashes with the buffercache. Ah, so it does. but: #define xfs_iowait(bp) xfs_buf_iowait(bp) Perhaps we should kill that define and just use xfs_buf_iowait(bp) because it documents that we really are waiting on a specific object.... Then maybe we can use xfs_data_iowake/xfs_data_iowait for the data I/O on an inode to complete. That way it's obvious from the code exactly what we are waiting on, too (which might make some of the comments redundant). Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs