[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210426134632.GM235567@casper.infradead.org>
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2021 14:46:32 +0100
From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org,
dan.j.williams@...el.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
virtio-fs@...hat.com, miklos@...redi.hu, jack@...e.cz,
slp@...hat.com, groug@...d.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/3] dax: Add an enum for specifying dax wakup mode
On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 09:07:21AM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> +enum dax_wake_mode {
> + WAKE_NEXT,
> + WAKE_ALL,
> +};
Why define them in this order when ...
> @@ -196,7 +207,7 @@ static void dax_wake_entry(struct xa_state *xas, void *entry, bool wake_all)
> * must be in the waitqueue and the following check will see them.
> */
> if (waitqueue_active(wq))
> - __wake_up(wq, TASK_NORMAL, wake_all ? 0 : 1, &key);
> + __wake_up(wq, TASK_NORMAL, mode == WAKE_ALL ? 0 : 1, &key);
... they're used like this? This is almost as bad as
enum bool {
true,
false,
};
Powered by blists - more mailing lists