On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 02:46:32PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 09:07:21AM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> > +enum dax_wake_mode {
> > + WAKE_NEXT,
> > + WAKE_ALL,
> > +};
>
> Why define them in this order when ...
>
> > @@ -196,7 +207,7 @@ static void dax_wake_entry(struct xa_state *xas, void
> > *entry, bool wake_all)
> > * must be in the waitqueue and the following check will see them.
> > */
> > if (waitqueue_active(wq))
> > - __wake_up(wq, TASK_NORMAL, wake_all ? 0 : 1, &key);
> > + __wake_up(wq, TASK_NORMAL, mode == WAKE_ALL ? 0 : 1, &key);
>
> ... they're used like this? This is almost as bad as
>
> enum bool {
> true,
> false,
> };
Hi Matthew,
So you prefer that I should switch order of WAKE_NEXT and WAKE_ALL?
enum dax_wake_mode {
WAKE_ALL,
WAKE_NEXT,
};
And then do following to wake task.
if (waitqueue_active(wq))
__wake_up(wq, TASK_NORMAL, mode, &key);
I am fine with this if you like this better.
Or you are suggesting that don't introduce "enum dax_wake_mode" to
begin with.
Vivek
_______________________________________________
Linux-nvdimm mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
