Prev: blkdev: add blkdev_issue helper functions
Next: patch blk-add-zeroout-helper.patch
From: Christoph Hellwig on 13 Apr 2010 14:10
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 05:03:54PM +0400, Dmitry Monakhov wrote:
> In some places caller don't want to wait a request to complete.
> Flags make blkdev_issue_flush() more flexible. This patch just
> convert existing callers to new interface without chaining
> existing allocation/wait behavior.

Looks okay to me, but as mention in the other review I would introduce
the comment flags first and then add the flags to blkdev_issue_flush,
not the other way around.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo(a)vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
From: Christoph Hellwig on 13 Apr 2010 14:20
> +enum{
> + __BLKDEV_IFL_WAIT, /* wait for completion */
> + __BLKDEV_IFL_BARRIER, /*issue request with barrier */
> +};
> +#define BLKDEV_IFL_WAIT (1 << __BLKDEV_IFL_WAIT)
> +#define BLKDEV_IFL_BARRIER (1 << __BLKDEV_IFL_BARRIER)

This is a very awkward stayle to define flags. There really should
be no need for the __-prefixed version. While you're using them for
test/set_bit and co there's no reason to use these atomic bitops here.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo(a)vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: blkdev: add blkdev_issue helper functions
Next: patch blk-add-zeroout-helper.patch