All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: wangyijing <wangyijing@huawei.com>
To: Coly Li <i@coly.li>,
	axboe@fb.com, Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@gmail.com>
Cc: Eric Wheeler <git@linux.ewheeler.net>, Coly Li <colyli@suse.de>,
	linux-bcache@vger.kernel.org, linux-raid@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH 2/3] bcache: update document info
Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2016 09:51:32 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <5775CCA4.9070805@huawei.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <b66c1795-3201-e571-75da-979893338d85@coly.li>

Hi Coly, thanks to your review and comments.

Commit 77b5a08427e875 ("bcache: don't embed 'return' statements in closure macros")
remove the return in continue_at(), so I think we should update the document info
about continue_at().

Thanks!
Yijing.

在 2016/6/29 18:16, Coly Li 写道:
> 在 16/6/22 上午10:12, Yijing Wang 写道:
>> There is no return in continue_at(), update the documentation.
>>
> 
> There are 2 modification of this patch. The first one is about a typo,
> it is correct.
> 
> But I doubt your second modification is proper. The line removed in your
> patch is,
>> - * continue_at() also, critically, is a macro that returns the
> calling function.
>> - * There's good reason for this.
>> - *
> 
> I think this is exactly what original author wants to say. It does not
> mean return a value, it means return to the calling function. And the
> bellowed lines explains the reason.
> 
>> Signed-off-by: Yijing Wang <wangyijing@huawei.com>
>> ---
>>  drivers/md/bcache/closure.c |    2 +-
>>  drivers/md/bcache/closure.h |    3 ---
>>  2 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/md/bcache/closure.c b/drivers/md/bcache/closure.c
>> index 9eaf1d6..864e673 100644
>> --- a/drivers/md/bcache/closure.c
>> +++ b/drivers/md/bcache/closure.c
>> @@ -112,7 +112,7 @@ bool closure_wait(struct closure_waitlist *waitlist, struct closure *cl)
>>  EXPORT_SYMBOL(closure_wait);
>>  
>>  /**
>> - * closure_sync - sleep until a closure a closure has nothing left to wait on
>> + * closure_sync - sleep until a closure has nothing left to wait on
> 
> Yes, this modification is good.
> 
>>   *
>>   * Sleeps until the refcount hits 1 - the thread that's running the closure owns
>>   * the last refcount.
>> diff --git a/drivers/md/bcache/closure.h b/drivers/md/bcache/closure.h
>> index 782cc2c..f51188d 100644
>> --- a/drivers/md/bcache/closure.h
>> +++ b/drivers/md/bcache/closure.h
>> @@ -31,9 +31,6 @@
>>   * passing it, as you might expect, the function to run when nothing is pending
>>   * and the workqueue to run that function out of.
>>   *
>> - * continue_at() also, critically, is a macro that returns the calling function.
>> - * There's good reason for this.
>> - *
>>   * To use safely closures asynchronously, they must always have a refcount while
>>   * they are running owned by the thread that is running them. Otherwise, suppose
>>   * you submit some bios and wish to have a function run when they all complete:
>>
> 
> 

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: wangyijing <wangyijing@huawei.com>
To: Coly Li <i@coly.li>, <axboe@fb.com>,
	Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@gmail.com>
Cc: Eric Wheeler <git@linux.ewheeler.net>, Coly Li <colyli@suse.de>,
	<linux-bcache@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-raid@vger.kernel.org>,
	<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH 2/3] bcache: update document info
Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2016 09:51:32 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <5775CCA4.9070805@huawei.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <b66c1795-3201-e571-75da-979893338d85@coly.li>

Hi Coly, thanks to your review and comments.

Commit 77b5a08427e875 ("bcache: don't embed 'return' statements in closure macros")
remove the return in continue_at(), so I think we should update the document info
about continue_at().

Thanks!
Yijing.

在 2016/6/29 18:16, Coly Li 写道:
> 在 16/6/22 上午10:12, Yijing Wang 写道:
>> There is no return in continue_at(), update the documentation.
>>
> 
> There are 2 modification of this patch. The first one is about a typo,
> it is correct.
> 
> But I doubt your second modification is proper. The line removed in your
> patch is,
>> - * continue_at() also, critically, is a macro that returns the
> calling function.
>> - * There's good reason for this.
>> - *
> 
> I think this is exactly what original author wants to say. It does not
> mean return a value, it means return to the calling function. And the
> bellowed lines explains the reason.
> 
>> Signed-off-by: Yijing Wang <wangyijing@huawei.com>
>> ---
>>  drivers/md/bcache/closure.c |    2 +-
>>  drivers/md/bcache/closure.h |    3 ---
>>  2 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/md/bcache/closure.c b/drivers/md/bcache/closure.c
>> index 9eaf1d6..864e673 100644
>> --- a/drivers/md/bcache/closure.c
>> +++ b/drivers/md/bcache/closure.c
>> @@ -112,7 +112,7 @@ bool closure_wait(struct closure_waitlist *waitlist, struct closure *cl)
>>  EXPORT_SYMBOL(closure_wait);
>>  
>>  /**
>> - * closure_sync - sleep until a closure a closure has nothing left to wait on
>> + * closure_sync - sleep until a closure has nothing left to wait on
> 
> Yes, this modification is good.
> 
>>   *
>>   * Sleeps until the refcount hits 1 - the thread that's running the closure owns
>>   * the last refcount.
>> diff --git a/drivers/md/bcache/closure.h b/drivers/md/bcache/closure.h
>> index 782cc2c..f51188d 100644
>> --- a/drivers/md/bcache/closure.h
>> +++ b/drivers/md/bcache/closure.h
>> @@ -31,9 +31,6 @@
>>   * passing it, as you might expect, the function to run when nothing is pending
>>   * and the workqueue to run that function out of.
>>   *
>> - * continue_at() also, critically, is a macro that returns the calling function.
>> - * There's good reason for this.
>> - *
>>   * To use safely closures asynchronously, they must always have a refcount while
>>   * they are running owned by the thread that is running them. Otherwise, suppose
>>   * you submit some bios and wish to have a function run when they all complete:
>>
> 
> 

  reply	other threads:[~2016-07-01  1:51 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-06-22  2:12 [RESEND PATCH 2/3] bcache: update document info Yijing Wang
2016-06-22  2:12 ` Yijing Wang
2016-06-29 10:16 ` Coly Li
2016-07-01  1:51   ` wangyijing [this message]
2016-07-01  1:51     ` wangyijing
2016-07-01  4:21     ` Coly Li
2016-07-01  4:21       ` Coly Li
2016-07-01  6:25       ` wangyijing
2016-07-01  6:25         ` wangyijing

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=5775CCA4.9070805@huawei.com \
    --to=wangyijing@huawei.com \
    --cc=axboe@fb.com \
    --cc=colyli@suse.de \
    --cc=git@linux.ewheeler.net \
    --cc=i@coly.li \
    --cc=kent.overstreet@gmail.com \
    --cc=linux-bcache@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-raid@vger.kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.