From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 143FDC433FE for ; Wed, 23 Nov 2022 18:13:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1oxuEg-0006nF-RD; Wed, 23 Nov 2022 13:12:38 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1oxuEf-0006mg-He for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 23 Nov 2022 13:12:37 -0500 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com ([170.10.129.124]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1oxuEe-0003Gn-0a for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 23 Nov 2022 13:12:37 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1669227155; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=+LgJavRVeTWO9eKxf0CHgUmjkCetmIwB8QzYpORZN5g=; b=Z19NjkBV+++e4nUdfX0LeEWoy7iJERlWartWg0cog/JZNHY5fNyCKyOgpXJJdcSCnLJmoj NlpVa4Y7ZfF1krXgq3JJmfrxvz+iG3I88rLoHr3CSy5OffdA1faPUFSp7+6db87OhrcU5I oOT17dczqGnXZR6uLYo5T700G9x/wzM= Received: from mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (mx3-rdu2.redhat.com [66.187.233.73]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-97-7jCQ_gRsNXaMNreaMa6hYg-1; Wed, 23 Nov 2022 13:12:31 -0500 X-MC-Unique: 7jCQ_gRsNXaMNreaMa6hYg-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B0F2C29DD9B2; Wed, 23 Nov 2022 18:12:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: from redhat.com (unknown [10.39.194.88]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2CA1F40C83BB; Wed, 23 Nov 2022 18:12:27 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2022 19:12:24 +0100 From: Kevin Wolf To: Paolo Bonzini Cc: Emanuele Giuseppe Esposito , qemu-block@nongnu.org, Hanna Reitz , Stefan Hajnoczi , Ari Sundholm , Pavel Dovgalyuk , John Snow , Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy , Stefan Weil , Fam Zheng , Ronnie Sahlberg , Peter Lieven , Eric Blake , Philippe =?iso-8859-1?Q?Mathieu-Daud=E9?= , Alberto Garcia , Ilya Dryomov , Wen Congyang , Xie Changlong , "Richard W.M. Jones" , Jeff Cody , Cleber Rosa , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, integration@gluster.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/15] Protect the block layer with a rwlock: part 3 Message-ID: References: <20221116140730.3056048-1-eesposit@redhat.com> <4a16c6dd-7806-429a-f62d-afd13bebc52c@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.1 on 10.11.54.1 Received-SPF: pass client-ip=170.10.129.124; envelope-from=kwolf@redhat.com; helo=us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com X-Spam_score_int: -27 X-Spam_score: -2.8 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.8 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: qemu-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Am 23.11.2022 um 18:04 hat Paolo Bonzini geschrieben: > On 11/23/22 14:45, Kevin Wolf wrote: > > I think this means that if we clean up everything, in the end we'll have > > coroutine_wrapper and coroutine_wrapper_bdrv (the fourth version not in > > the above list, but that Paolo mentioned we may want to have). > > Yes, I agree. > > > The only thing I'm unsure about is whether coroutine_wrapper_bdrv is > > descriptive enough as a name or whether it should be something more > > explicit like coroutine_wrapper_bdrv_graph_locked. > > That's already long and becomes longer if you add "mixed", but perhaps > co_wrapper_{mixed_,}{bdrv_graph_rdlock,} would be okay? > > In other words: > > generated_co_wrapper_simple -> co_wrapper > generated_co_wrapper -> co_wrapper_mixed > generated_co_wrapper_bdrv -> co_wrapper_mixed_bdrv_graph_rdlock > > ? Works for me. Maybe co_wrapper_mixed_bdrv_rdlock (without the "graph") would be enough, too, if it is too long. Kevin