![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
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-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/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2007-01-04 06:55 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||