[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20171025063435.GQ3310@X58A-UD3R>
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2017 15:34:35 +0900
From: Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc: peterz@...radead.org, axboe@...nel.dk, johan@...nel.org,
tglx@...utronix.de, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, tj@...nel.org, johannes.berg@...el.com,
oleg@...hat.com, amir73il@...il.com, david@...morbit.com,
darrick.wong@...cle.com, linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
hch@...radead.org, idryomov@...il.com, kernel-team@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 7/7] block: Assign a lock_class per gendisk used for
wait_for_completion()
On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 08:01:24AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> Beyond the #ifdef reduction I mentioned in the other thread, there's four other
> things I noticed that need to be fixed in this patch:
>
> - Please write out 'minor' instead of the 'm' abbreviation that is meaningless.
> 'm' is only used for trivial wrappers, but this wrapper is not trivial - so
> proper canonical variable names should be used.
>
> - Since __key and __name is already double underscores that is customary for
> macros to avoid variable name shadowing, why is 'ret' not such a name?
>
> - But, 'ret' is the typical name used for integer returns, not for pointers!
> Please check the gendisk code for what the typical name for gendisk pointers
> is and use that instead of making up new, weird patterns ...
>
> - The "(complete)"#minor"("#id")" generated name is pretty bad. Firstly
> "complete" is a verb (or adjective), while lock(dep) symbol names should be
> nouns! But even "completion" is pretty opaque, how about "gendisk_completion"?
>
> More careful patches please!
I am sorry for that. I will do my best not to repeat them.
And I re-spined ASAP to make you able to review with the latest version
only including all your suggestions at the previous version.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists