Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1998 22:10:05 +1000 From: Stephen McKay <syssgm@dtir.qld.gov.au> To: Doug Rabson <dfr@nlsystems.com> Cc: "John S. Dyson" <dyson@iquest.net>, freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG, syssgm@dtir.qld.gov.au Subject: Re: Serious bug in vm_page.h in current Message-ID: <199808251210.WAA12649@nymph.dtir.qld.gov.au> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.01.9808251006570.17263-100000@herring.nlsystems.com> from Doug Rabson at "Tue, 25 Aug 1998 10:11:36 %2B0100" References: <Pine.BSF.4.01.9808251006570.17263-100000@herring.nlsystems.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tuesday, 25th August 1998, Doug Rabson wrote: >I understand now after reading an old version of your VM patch. I added >the macro PAGE_BUSY to encapsulate manipulations of m->busy and you added >PAGE_BUSY to set the PG_BUSY bit. I think we need two macros :-). I don't >mind changing the m->busy++ one; what do you think is the right name? Purely on naming now, the new inline vm_object_set_flag() and friends are well named. The PAGE_BUSY and PAGE_WAKEUP macros, etc, should be similarly named inline functions. For example, vm_page_busy_add() and vm_page_wakeup(). Best of all, of course, would be to have different names for these two types of busy-ness (busy the count vs PG_BUSY the flag). John tells us that m->busy is an "active IO count". It should be named thus. Then PG_BUSY will no longer be confused with it. Stephen. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199808251210.WAA12649>