From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:54130)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <jan.kiszka@siemens.com>) id 1V9FzB-0000bQ-KL
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 13 Aug 2013 10:54:21 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <jan.kiszka@siemens.com>) id 1V9Fz4-0004rL-B7
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 13 Aug 2013 10:54:13 -0400
Received: from david.siemens.de ([192.35.17.14]:25966)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <jan.kiszka@siemens.com>) id 1V9Fz4-0004rC-0A
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 13 Aug 2013 10:54:06 -0400
Message-ID: <520A4884.3090708@siemens.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2013 16:53:56 +0200
From: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <1376372630-1983-1-git-send-email-pingfank@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
	<1376372630-1983-2-git-send-email-pingfank@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
	<5209EDB0.1060500@siemens.com>
	<CAJnKYQkBjRcHX2j0OgY16qkTWRRf3WfKJ26SuuwRnmR3PhUedw@mail.gmail.com>
	<5209F7C7.7000907@siemens.com> <520A4814.9070005@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <520A4814.9070005@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 1/4] seqlock: introduce read-write
	seqlock
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Cc: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>, Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@redhat.com>, liu ping fan <qemulist@gmail.com>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Alex Bligh <alex@alex.org.uk>, MORITA Kazutaka <morita.kazutaka@lab.ntt.co.jp>

On 2013-08-13 16:52, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Il 13/08/2013 11:09, Jan Kiszka ha scritto:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As the usage pattern is
>>>>>>
>>>>>> seqlock_read_begin()
>>>>>> do
>>>>>>         ...
>>>>>> while (seqlock_read_check())
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I would suggest to call the latter seqlock_read_retry(), just like the
>>>>>> kernel does.
>>>>>>
>>>> I think it contains the meaning of check-success-or-retry. So may
>>>> check be nicer?
>> "Check" alone has no obvious semantic for me, therefore "retry".
> 
> I agree.  I was writing the patch without looking at any Linux code
> (just to be safe since it's GPLv2-only) and misremembered the name of
> the API.

Another reason to forget about v2+. ;)

Jan

-- 
Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT RTC ITP SES-DE
Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux