On 07/18/2016 07:38 PM, Tejun Heo wrote:
+/*The more I think about it, the more bothered I'm about the dlock_list
+ * include/linux/dlock-list.h
+ * A distributed (per-cpu) set of lists each of which is protected by its
+ * own spinlock, but acts like a single consolidated list to the callers.
+ * The dlock_list_head_percpu structure contains the spinlock, the other
+ * dlock_list_node structures only contains a pointer to the spinlock in
+ * dlock_list_head_percpu.
name. For the most part, this isn't different from other percpu data
structures in the kernel. Sure, it might benefit from doing Nth cpu,
but so are other percpu data structures and it's not just "distributed
lock" list either. The list itself is percpu, not just locking. Can
we please go back to percpu_list? Christoph, what do you think?
As I said before, I don't mind reverting the name back to percpu_list. I am just waiting for a final agreement.