Messages in this thread | ![/](/images/icornerl.gif) | | Date | Thu, 28 Dec 2006 11:55:10 +0000 | From | Christoph Hellwig <> | Subject | Re: [FSAIO][PATCH 6/8] Enable asynchronous wait page and lock page |
| |
On Thu, Dec 28, 2006 at 02:11:49PM +0530, Suparna Bhattacharya wrote: > -extern void FASTCALL(lock_page_slow(struct page *page)); > +extern int FASTCALL(__lock_page_slow(struct page *page, wait_queue_t *wait)); > extern void FASTCALL(__lock_page_nosync(struct page *page)); > extern void FASTCALL(unlock_page(struct page *page)); > > /* > * lock_page may only be called if we have the page's inode pinned. > */ > -static inline void lock_page(struct page *page) > +static inline int __lock_page(struct page *page, wait_queue_t *wait) > { > might_sleep(); > if (TestSetPageLocked(page)) > - lock_page_slow(page); > + return __lock_page_slow(page, wait); > + return 0; > } > > +#define lock_page(page) __lock_page(page, ¤t->__wait.wait) > +#define lock_page_slow(page) __lock_page_slow(page, ¤t->__wait.wait)
Can we please simply kill your lock_page_slow wrapper and rename the arguments taking __lock_page_slow to lock_page_slow? All too many variants of the locking functions aren't all that useful and there's very few users.
Similarly I don't really think __lock_page is an all that useful name here. What about lock_page_wq? or aio_lock_page to denote it has special meaning in aio contect? Then again because of these special sematics we need a bunch of really verbose kerneldoc comments for this function famility.
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| ![\](/images/icornerr.gif) |