lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Jul]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/4] block: use the same failfast bits for bio and request
Hello, Boaz.

Boaz Harrosh wrote:
>>> flags as bit positions generally only make sense if you use
>>> test/set/clear_bit, otherwise they just confuse things.
>
> first please make a distinction between test/set/clear_bit and
> test/__set/__clear_bit the former is not an option since it's not what
> we need.

Block flags look like the way they do today because a while back they
were accessed with atomic bitops (the versions w/o the underbars).
Now that they're all inside spinlocks, it all became moot.

> What can be more clear then rq_set_flags(req, QUEUE_FLAG_QUEUED) then
> rq_clear_flags(req, QUEUE_FLAG_QUEUED) later.

req->cmd_flags |= QUEUE_FLAG_QUEUED / &= ~QUEUE_FLAG_QUEUED might not
be as clear but should be sufficient, I suppose.
> That's why I suggested the set/clear_flags() variable size macro
> which can set/clear multiple bit-flags at same cost of masks, only
> that the compiler calculates the mask in compile time.
>
> This can also be good for the greps above. .eg:
> test_flags(&rq->cmd_flags, REQ_FAILFAST_DEV, REQ_FAILFAST_TRANSPORT, REQ_FAILFAST_DRIVER);
...
> As said, yes, the the lower-case accessors for upper-case bits does nothing,
> but use __set/__clear/test is a different matter that can also replace the
> sugary need of these.

Heh.. I don't know. What about things like flags & mask == mask2
test? The vararg macros would work for most cases and I wouldn't be
violently against them if they were already in place but I don't see
much benefit of all those when people are already very accustomed to
using c bitops to handle flags.

Thanks.

--
tejun


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-07-15 11:31    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans