* [RESEND PATCH 2/3] bcache: update document info
@ 2016-06-22 2:12 ` Yijing Wang
0 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: Yijing Wang @ 2016-06-22 2:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: axboe, Kent Overstreet
Cc: Eric Wheeler, Coly Li, linux-bcache, linux-raid, linux-kernel,
Yijing Wang
There is no return in continue_at(), update the documentation.
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
*
* 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:
--
1.7.1
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* [RESEND PATCH 2/3] bcache: update document info
@ 2016-06-22 2:12 ` Yijing Wang
0 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: Yijing Wang @ 2016-06-22 2:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: axboe, Kent Overstreet
Cc: Eric Wheeler, Coly Li, linux-bcache, linux-raid, linux-kernel,
Yijing Wang
There is no return in continue_at(), update the documentation.
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
*
* 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:
--
1.7.1
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [RESEND PATCH 2/3] bcache: update document info
2016-06-22 2:12 ` Yijing Wang
(?)
@ 2016-06-29 10:16 ` Coly Li
2016-07-01 1:51 ` wangyijing
-1 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Coly Li @ 2016-06-29 10:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Yijing Wang, axboe, Kent Overstreet
Cc: Eric Wheeler, Coly Li, linux-bcache, linux-raid, linux-kernel
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:
>
--
Coly Li
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [RESEND PATCH 2/3] bcache: update document info
2016-06-29 10:16 ` Coly Li
@ 2016-07-01 1:51 ` wangyijing
0 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: wangyijing @ 2016-07-01 1:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Coly Li, axboe, Kent Overstreet
Cc: Eric Wheeler, Coly Li, linux-bcache, linux-raid, linux-kernel
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:
>>
>
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [RESEND PATCH 2/3] bcache: update document info
@ 2016-07-01 1:51 ` wangyijing
0 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: wangyijing @ 2016-07-01 1:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Coly Li, axboe, Kent Overstreet
Cc: Eric Wheeler, Coly Li, linux-bcache, linux-raid, linux-kernel
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:
>>
>
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [RESEND PATCH 2/3] bcache: update document info
2016-07-01 1:51 ` wangyijing
@ 2016-07-01 4:21 ` Coly Li
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: Coly Li @ 2016-07-01 4:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: wangyijing, Coly Li, axboe, Kent Overstreet
Cc: Eric Wheeler, linux-bcache, linux-raid, linux-kernel
在 16/7/1 上午9:51, wangyijing 写道:
> 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.
Hi Yijing,
The original version of continue_at() returns to caller function inside
the macro, Jens thinks this macro breaks code execution flow implicitly,
so he moves 'return' out of continue_at() and to follow continue_at() at
the location where continue_at() is referenced.
So as I suggested, the original author means the code should return to
the calling function.
But YES, I agree that the comments should be updated, because there is
no 'return' inside macro continue_at(). We should explicitly point out
that there should be a 'return' immediately following macro continue_at().
Thanks.
Coly
> 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:
>>>
>>
>>
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [RESEND PATCH 2/3] bcache: update document info
@ 2016-07-01 4:21 ` Coly Li
0 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: Coly Li @ 2016-07-01 4:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: wangyijing, Coly Li, axboe, Kent Overstreet
Cc: Eric Wheeler, linux-bcache, linux-raid, linux-kernel
在 16/7/1 上午9:51, wangyijing 写道:
> 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.
Hi Yijing,
The original version of continue_at() returns to caller function inside
the macro, Jens thinks this macro breaks code execution flow implicitly,
so he moves 'return' out of continue_at() and to follow continue_at() at
the location where continue_at() is referenced.
So as I suggested, the original author means the code should return to
the calling function.
But YES, I agree that the comments should be updated, because there is
no 'return' inside macro continue_at(). We should explicitly point out
that there should be a 'return' immediately following macro continue_at().
Thanks.
Coly
> 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:
>>>
>>
>>
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [RESEND PATCH 2/3] bcache: update document info
2016-07-01 4:21 ` Coly Li
@ 2016-07-01 6:25 ` wangyijing
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: wangyijing @ 2016-07-01 6:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Coly Li, Coly Li, axboe, Kent Overstreet
Cc: Eric Wheeler, linux-bcache, linux-raid, linux-kernel
在 2016/7/1 12:21, Coly Li 写道:
> 在 16/7/1 上午9:51, wangyijing 写道:
>> 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.
>
> Hi Yijing,
>
> The original version of continue_at() returns to caller function inside
> the macro, Jens thinks this macro breaks code execution flow implicitly,
> so he moves 'return' out of continue_at() and to follow continue_at() at
> the location where continue_at() is referenced.
>
> So as I suggested, the original author means the code should return to
> the calling function.
>
> But YES, I agree that the comments should be updated, because there is
> no 'return' inside macro continue_at(). We should explicitly point out
> that there should be a 'return' immediately following macro continue_at().
Yes, you are right, it's better to explicitly point out a return needed to follow continue_at()
than remove this document info, I will update this patch, thanks very much!
>
> Thanks.
>
> Coly
>
>
>> 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:
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
> .
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [RESEND PATCH 2/3] bcache: update document info
@ 2016-07-01 6:25 ` wangyijing
0 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: wangyijing @ 2016-07-01 6:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Coly Li, Coly Li, axboe, Kent Overstreet
Cc: Eric Wheeler, linux-bcache, linux-raid, linux-kernel
在 2016/7/1 12:21, Coly Li 写道:
> 在 16/7/1 上午9:51, wangyijing 写道:
>> 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.
>
> Hi Yijing,
>
> The original version of continue_at() returns to caller function inside
> the macro, Jens thinks this macro breaks code execution flow implicitly,
> so he moves 'return' out of continue_at() and to follow continue_at() at
> the location where continue_at() is referenced.
>
> So as I suggested, the original author means the code should return to
> the calling function.
>
> But YES, I agree that the comments should be updated, because there is
> no 'return' inside macro continue_at(). We should explicitly point out
> that there should be a 'return' immediately following macro continue_at().
Yes, you are right, it's better to explicitly point out a return needed to follow continue_at()
than remove this document info, I will update this patch, thanks very much!
>
> Thanks.
>
> Coly
>
>
>> 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:
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
> .
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2016-07-01 6:26 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
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
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
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.