Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 22 May 2015 13:34:04 +0200 | From | Christoph Hellwig <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH-v2 2/9] target/pr: Use atomic bitop for se_dev_entry->pr_reg reservation check |
| |
On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 02:05:57AM -0700, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote: > On Fri, 2015-05-22 at 10:26 +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 06:11:04AM +0000, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote: > > > + clear_bit(1, &orig->pr_reg); > > > > Can you call it ->flags and give the bit a meaningful name? > > The bit is signaling if se_dev_entry has a PR registration active. > > I don't see how ->flags is a more meaningful name without other bits > defined.
It's pretty normal style: define a flags variable for any sort of bitops state that might show up, and then give the actual bits a meaningful name. There's almost no users of using a magic numberic value with atomic bitops.
Besides being the usual and thus easier to read style it's also good future proofing.
> > It would be good to just sort out the registered and co variables > > here before the RCU changes, as in: > > > > http://git.infradead.org/users/hch/scsi.git/commitdiff/6372d9f62c83acb30d051387c40deb4dbdcaa376 > > Why not just keep this patch squashed into the relevant commit in the > context of the larger RCU conversion..?
Because the logic in and aroudn core_scsi3_pr_seq_non_holder right now is rather confusing. So before doing changes to it it's better to clean it up first, document that cleanup in a standalon patch and then apply the logic change on top.
| |