Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 22 Jul 2016 16:43:25 -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. >
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
| |