Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Thu, Dec 28, 2006 at 08:17:17PM +0530, Suparna Bhattacharya wrote:
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 ?
Beein bad about naming seems to be a disease, at least I suffer from it
aswell. I wouldn't mind either the _wq or aio_ naming - _wq describes
the way it's called and aio_ describes it's a special case for aio.
Similarly to how ->aio_read/->aio_write can be used for synchronous I/O
aswell.
What about lock_page_async? A synchronous lock_page is the normal case,
and for that guy it makes no sense to explicitly pass in a waitqueue, so
it kind of falls into place?
--
SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.
Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
