Re: [FSAIO][PATCH 6/8] Enable asynchronous wait page and lock page

From: Christoph Hellwig
Date: Thu Dec 28 2006 - 06:55:39 EST

On Thu, Dec 28, 2006 at 02:11:49PM +0530, Suparna Bhattacharya wrote:
> -extern void FASTCALL(lock_page_slow(struct page *page));
> +extern int FASTCALL(__lock_page_slow(struct page *page, wait_queue_t *wait));
> extern void FASTCALL(__lock_page_nosync(struct page *page));
> extern void FASTCALL(unlock_page(struct page *page));
> /*
> * lock_page may only be called if we have the page's inode pinned.
> */
> -static inline void lock_page(struct page *page)
> +static inline int __lock_page(struct page *page, wait_queue_t *wait)
> {
> might_sleep();
> if (TestSetPageLocked(page))
> - lock_page_slow(page);
> + return __lock_page_slow(page, wait);
> + return 0;
> }
> +#define lock_page(page) __lock_page(page, &current->__wait.wait)
> +#define lock_page_slow(page) __lock_page_slow(page, &current->__wait.wait)

Can we please simply kill your lock_page_slow wrapper and rename the
arguments taking __lock_page_slow to lock_page_slow? All too many
variants of the locking functions aren't all that useful and there's
very few users.

Similarly I don't really think __lock_page is an all that useful name here.
What about lock_page_wq? or aio_lock_page to denote it has special
meaning in aio contect? Then again because of these special sematics
we need a bunch of really verbose kerneldoc comments for this function

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at