Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758122AbZASElA (ORCPT ); Sun, 18 Jan 2009 23:41:00 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754064AbZASEku (ORCPT ); Sun, 18 Jan 2009 23:40:50 -0500 Received: from ipmail04.adl2.internode.on.net ([203.16.214.57]:5852 "EHLO ipmail04.adl2.internode.on.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750936AbZASEku (ORCPT ); Sun, 18 Jan 2009 23:40:50 -0500 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ApoEAIiRc0l5LBUR/2dsb2JhbADPLYVz X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.37,286,1231075800"; d="scan'208";a="286865441" Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2009 15:40:45 +1100 From: Dave Chinner To: Arjan van de Ven Cc: Cornelia Huck , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] async: Add some documentation. Message-ID: <20090119044045.GA6654@disturbed> Mail-Followup-To: Arjan van de Ven , Cornelia Huck , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <20090113174306.0f620476@gondolin> <20090114024952.GS8071@disturbed> <20090114112450.1a1af271@gondolin> <20090118163912.55f835a0@infradead.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090118163912.55f835a0@infradead.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1400 Lines: 36 On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 04:39:12PM -0800, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 11:24:50 +0100 > Cornelia Huck 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.... Yeah, local is sounds ok - it's certainly more obvious that it's a scope modifier for the synchronisation primitive. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com -- 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/