Re: [PATCH v3 1/4] lib/dlock-list: Distributed and lock-protected lists

[Waiman Long]

On 07/19/2016 02:42 PM, Waiman Long wrote:
> On 07/18/2016 07:38 PM, Tejun Heo wrote:
>
>
> > > +/*
> > > + * include/linux/dlock-list.h
> > > + *
> > > + * A distributed (per-cpu) set of lists each of which is protected 
> > > by its
> > > + * own spinlock, but acts like a single consolidated list to the 
> > > callers.
> > > + *
> > > + * The dlock_list_head_percpu structure contains the spinlock, the 
> > > other
> > > + * dlock_list_node structures only contains a pointer to the 
> > > spinlock in
> > > + * dlock_list_head_percpu.
> > > + */
> > The more I think about it, the more bothered I'm about the dlock_list
> > name.  For the most part, this isn't different from other percpu data
> > structures in the kernel.  Sure, it might benefit from doing Nth cpu,
> > but so are other percpu data structures and it's not just "distributed
> > lock" list either.  The list itself is percpu, not just locking.  Can
> > we please go back to percpu_list?  Christoph, what do you think?
>
> As I said before, I don't mind reverting the name back to percpu_list. 
> I am just waiting for a final agreement.

I have just sent out an update dlock-list patch that incorporates all 
the feedbacks that I got so far except the name change. I will be on 
vacation next week. After I come back, we can continue our discussion if 
the name should be reverted back to percpu_list or not.

Cheers,
Longman