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
--
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
