2011/11/20 Attilio Rao <attilio_at_freebsd.org>: > 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. This other patch converts sx to a similar interface which cleans up vm_map.c: http://www.freebsd.org/~attilio/sxfileline.patch What do you think about it? Attilio -- Peace can only be achieved by understanding - A. EinsteinReceived on Sun Nov 20 2011 - 18:04:24 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:40:20 UTC