Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 20 Jul 2016 18:15:47 -0400 | From | Waiman Long <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v3 1/4] lib/dlock-list: Distributed and lock-protected lists |
| |
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. >
Christoph, are you OK with Tejun's request to revert the name back to percpu_list? Or do you still think the current name is better?
I am almost done with my next version of the patch. This is the only thing that is still outstanding.
Thanks, Longman
Thanks, Longman
| |