2011/11/18 Attilio Rao <attilio_at_freebsd.org>: > 2011/11/18 Attilio Rao <attilio_at_freebsd.org>: >> 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. > > After thinking more about it, I think that is basically the shorter > version I can came up with. > > Please consider: > http://www.freebsd.org/~attilio/mutexfileline2.patch This is now committed as r227758,227759, you can update your patch now. Attilio -- Peace can only be achieved by understanding - A. EinsteinReceived on Sun Nov 20 2011 - 15:37:36 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:40:20 UTC