Re: [PATCH 1/2] fs: Abstract calling the kiocb completion function

[Jens Axboe]

On 7/8/20 4:40 PM, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 08, 2020 at 04:37:21PM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> On 7/8/20 4:26 PM, Matthew Wilcox (Oracle) wrote:
>>> diff --git a/crypto/af_alg.c b/crypto/af_alg.c
>>> index b1cd3535c525..590dbbcd0e9f 100644
>>> --- a/crypto/af_alg.c
>>> +++ b/crypto/af_alg.c
>>> @@ -1045,7 +1045,7 @@ void af_alg_async_cb(struct crypto_async_request *_req, int err)
>>>  	af_alg_free_resources(areq);
>>>  	sock_put(sk);
>>>  
>>> -	iocb->ki_complete(iocb, err ? err : (int)resultlen, 0);
>>> +	complete_kiocb(iocb, err ? err : (int)resultlen, 0);
>>
>> I'd prefer having it called kiocb_complete(), seems more in line with
>> what you'd expect in terms of naming for an exported interface.
> 
> Happy to make that change.  It seemed like you preferred the opposite
> way round with is_sync_kiocb() and init_sync_kiocb() already existing.
> 
> Should I switch register_kiocb_completion and unregister_kiocb_completion
> to kiocb_completion_register or kiocb_register_completion?

I prefer the latter here, as per the other email. But as long as kiocb_
is the prefix, I don't really care that much. The latter is how you'd
say it to, while the former sounds a bit yoda'ish.

-- 
Jens Axboe