Sorry for the lack of attention here. FWIW, I intended the current variable's name to be interpreted as "zil writer" lock, as @avg-I was saying.
With that said, I think renaming the variable, and adopting the term "issuer" instead of "writer" would be more inline with the current code, since there's now a `LWB_STATE_ISSUED` enum value for lwb's. So, while changing the terminology here from "writer" to "issuer" breaks tradition, I tend to agree with @idodeclare. Since LWBs now have an "issued" state, I think it makes sense to call the thread transitioning the LWBs into that state, the "issuer thread" (as opposed to the "writer thread"). Thus, using `zl_issuer_lock` rather than `zl_writer_lock` would be more appropriate. @avg-I I doubt I'm going to completely change your mind on this issue, but would you be able to live with this change? -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/openzfs/openzfs/pull/456#issuecomment-331487098 ------------------------------------------ openzfs-developer Archives: https://openzfs.topicbox.com/groups/developer/discussions/T54c57375fea79b4d-M093aab98db91f1c6f656e5cf Powered by Topicbox: https://topicbox.com
