From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1751296AbdJCRDR (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Tue, 3 Oct 2017 13:03:17 -0400
Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([65.50.211.133]:48544 "EHLO
        bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1750767AbdJCRDP (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Tue, 3 Oct 2017 13:03:15 -0400
Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2017 10:03:14 -0700
From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
To: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/12] writeback: only allow one inflight and pending
 full flush
Message-ID: <20171003170314.GB32309@bombadil.infradead.org>
References: <1506543239-31470-1-git-send-email-axboe@kernel.dk>
 <1506543239-31470-11-git-send-email-axboe@kernel.dk>
 <20170928144100.e11801ef742521e0e3f4b8df@linux-foundation.org>
 <CA+55aFw14cHWfcqi_4HpMserCDLX97kbnV2X+L+fio3wRHpkig@mail.gmail.com>
 <552d4502-0b0a-87fc-7b16-6b322c3af3ed@kernel.dk>
 <20171003160610.GA32309@bombadil.infradead.org>
 <a978a692-2e7d-a76f-9653-9df1b63f65de@kernel.dk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <a978a692-2e7d-a76f-9653-9df1b63f65de@kernel.dk>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.8.3 (2017-05-23)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

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 ...