lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2016]   [Jul]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [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.
>

I have just sent out an update dlock-list patch that incorporates all
the feedbacks that I got so far except the name change. I will be on
vacation next week. After I come back, we can continue our discussion if
the name should be reverted back to percpu_list or not.

Cheers,
Longman

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2016-07-22 23:41    [W:0.077 / U:0.168 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site