Re: [PATCH 10/12] writeback: only allow one inflight and pending full flush

From: Matthew Wilcox
Date: Tue Oct 03 2017 - 13:03:21 EST

On Tue, Oct 03, 2017 at 10:11:20AM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 10/03/2017 10:06 AM, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > test_and_test_and_set_bit()? It's an unusual name, so when either
> > reading it or writing it, people are going to say "something unusual
> > here", rather than "That Jens Axboe is such a n00b, he doesn't know how
> > to use test_and_set_bit()". There are a few references out on the web
> > to test-and-test-and-set already, so it's not entirely unique to Linux.
> I like that suggestion, but would suggest we make it
> test_then_test_and_set_bit() since the 'then' naming would work for
> having similar test_then_clear_bit() and not clash with
> test_and_set_bit().

'test-then-test-and-set' has the disadvantage of not being readily
searchable ... if you search for 'test-and-test-and-set', you find
discussions about why you might want to use this technique. Also, I
don't like having set use a different name from clear; either we want
'test_and_test_and_(set|clear)_bit()' or 'test_then_(set|clear)_bit()'.

Usually I'd be in favour of the shorter name, but this should be a rare
thing for people to use, and if you search for test-then-clear you get
a lot of results about pregnancy tests ...