2011/11/18 Kostik Belousov <kostikbel_at_gmail.com>: > On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 11:40:28AM +0100, Attilio Rao wrote: >> 2011/11/16 Kostik Belousov <kostikbel_at_gmail.com>: >> > On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 07:15:01PM +0100, Attilio Rao wrote: >> >> 2011/11/7 Kostik Belousov <kostikbel_at_gmail.com>: >> >> > On Mon, Nov 07, 2011 at 11:45:38AM -0600, Alan Cox wrote: >> >> >> Ok. I'll offer one final suggestion. Please consider an alternative >> >> >> suffix to "func". Perhaps, "kbi" or "KBI". In other words, something >> >> >> that hints at the function's reason for existing. >> >> > >> >> > Sure. Below is the extraction of only vm_page_lock() bits, together >> >> > with the suggested rename. When Attilio provides the promised simplification >> >> > of the mutex KPI, this can be reduced. >> >> >> >> My tentative patch is here: >> >> http://www.freebsd.org/~attilio/mutexfileline.patch >> >> >> >> I need to make more compile testing later, but it already compiles >> >> GENERIC + modules fine on HEAD. >> >> >> >> The patch provides a common entrypoint, option independent, for both >> >> fast case and debug/compat case. >> >> Additively, it almost entirely fixes the standard violation of the >> >> reserved namespace, as you described (the notable exception being the >> >> macro used in the fast path, that I want to fix as well, but in a >> >> separate commit). >> >> >> >> Now the file/line couplet can be passed to the "_" suffix variant of >> >> the flag functions. >> > Yes, this is exactly KPI that I would use when available for the >> > vm_page_lock() patch. >> > >> >> >> >> eadler_at_ reviewed the mutex.h comment. >> >> >> >> Please let me know what you think about it, as long as we agree on the >> >> patch I'll commit it. >> > But I also agree with John that imposing large churn due to the elimination >> > of the '__' prefix is too late now. At least it will make the change >> > non-MFCable. Besides, we already lived with the names for 10+ years. >> > >> > I will be happy to have the part of the patch that exports the mtx_XXX_(mtx, >> > file, line) defines which can be used without taking care of LOCK_DEBUG >> > or MUTEX_NOINLINE in the consumer code. >> >> Ok, this patch should just add the compat stub: >> http://www.freebsd.org/~attilio/mutexfileline2.patch > Am I right that I would use mtx_lock_(mtx, file, line) etc ? > If yes, I am fine with it. Yes that is correct. However, I'm a bit confused on one aspect: would you mind using _mtx_lock_flags() instead? If you don't mind the "underscore namespace violation" I think I can make a much smaller patch against HEAD for it. Otherwise, the one now posted should be ok. Attilio -- Peace can only be achieved by understanding - A. EinsteinReceived on Fri Nov 18 2011 - 09:56:58 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:40:20 UTC