On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 11:56:55AM +0100, Attilio Rao wrote: > 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. šI'll offer one final suggestion. šPlease consider an alternative > >> >> >> suffix to "func". šPerhaps, "kbi" or "KBI". šIn 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. _mtx_lock_flags() is fine. The reserved names start with __ or _[A-Z]. > > Otherwise, the one now posted should be ok. > > Attilio > > > -- > Peace can only be achieved by understanding - A. Einstein
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:40:20 UTC