Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1433665 > unrolled thread

Re: [RESEND PATCH 2/3] bcache: update document info

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: [RESEND PATCH 2/3] bcache: update document info Coly Li <i@coly.li> - 2016-06-29 12:50 +0200
    Re: [RESEND PATCH 2/3] bcache: update document info wangyijing <wangyijing@huawei.com> - 2016-07-01 04:10 +0200
      Re: [RESEND PATCH 2/3] bcache: update document info Coly Li <colyli@suse.de> - 2016-07-01 06:50 +0200
        Re: [RESEND PATCH 2/3] bcache: update document info wangyijing <wangyijing@huawei.com> - 2016-07-01 08:30 +0200

#1433665 — Re: [RESEND PATCH 2/3] bcache: update document info

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

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1434961

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:
>>
> 
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1435015

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:
>>>
>>
>>
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1435040

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:
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
> 
> 
> .
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web