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.
Christoph, are you OK with Tejun's request to revert the name back to
percpu_list? Or do you still think the current name is better?
I am almost done with my next version of the patch. This is the only
thing that is still outstanding.
Thanks,
Longman
Thanks,
Longman
--
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
