Re: [PATCH 2/2] async: Add some documentation.

[Cornelia Huck]

On Mon, 19 Jan 2009 15:40:45 +1100,
Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 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 <cornelia.huck@xxxxxxxxxx> 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.

Hm, I don't like _local too much. How about _subset, or _context, or
_scope?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/