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

[Cornelia Huck]

On Mon, 19 Jan 2009 04:52:42 -0800,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Mon, 19 Jan 2009 13:27:44 +0100
> Cornelia Huck <cornelia.huck@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > > > 
> > > > 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?
> 
> or _domain ?
> 
> and phrase stuff such that you have synchronization domains?

I like that one best so far.
--
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/