[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080626074636.GB7064@infradead.org>
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 03:46:36 -0400
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
Cc: xfs@....sgi.com, matthew@....cx, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] Extend completions to provide XFS object flush
requirements
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 02:41:12PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> XFS object flushing doesn't quite match existing completion semantics. It
> mixed exclusive access with completion. That is, we need to mark an object as
> being flushed before flushing it to disk, and then block any other attempt to
> flush it until the completion occurs.
>
> To do this we introduce:
>
> void init_completion_flush(struct completion *x)
> which initialises x->done = 1
>
> void completion_flush_start(struct completion *x)
> which blocks if done == 0, otherwise decrements done to zero and
> allows the caller to continue.
>
> bool completion_flush_start_nowait(struct completion *x)
> returns a failure status if done == 0, otherwise decrements done
> to zero and returns a "flush started" status. This is provided
> to allow flushing to begin safely while holding object locks in
> inverted order.
>
> This replaces the use of semaphores for providing this exclusion
> and completion mechanism.
Given that the only API call shared with normal completions is
complete() I'd rather make this a primitive of it's own, even if
internally implemented as completions.
Also please add kerneldoc comments for all new APIs eported to modules.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists