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

[Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>]

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@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....

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