Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2009 16:39:12 -0800
From: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org>
To: Cornelia Huck <cornelia.huck@de.ibm.com>
Cc: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] async: Add some documentation.
Message-ID: <20090118163912.55f835a0@infradead.org>
In-Reply-To: <20090114112450.1a1af271@gondolin>
References: <20090113174306.0f620476@gondolin>
	<20090114024952.GS8071@disturbed>
	<20090114112450.1a1af271@gondolin>
Organization: Intel
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1271
Lines: 31

On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 11:24:50 +0100
Cornelia Huck <cornelia.huck@de.ibm.com> wrote:

> > Rather than polishing a turd, can we rename this "special" stuff to
> > something more descriptive? I'm not the only person to complain
> > about this. How about async_schedule_list()?
> > 
> > After all, async_schedule_list() describes *exactly* how it is
> > different to async_schedule(), while the "_special" keywords really
> > suck when you consider code is supposed to be self documenting....
> 
> async_schedule_list() sounds better, agreed, but I'd prefer to change
> that in a seperate patch.

I had it as that at first. But it is ugly; naming a function after its
arguments is useless; it should be named after what it does instead.

I buy that "special" is not a good name. Would "local" be better?
The name needs to convey that it is for a specific synchronization
context....


-- 
Arjan van de Ven 	Intel Open Source Technology Centre
For development, discussion and tips for power savings, 
visit http://www.lesswatts.org
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/