Re: [PATCH v7 10/18] jobs: rename static functions called with job_mutex held

[Emanuele Giuseppe Esposito <eesposit@redhat.com>]

Am 28/06/2022 um 17:26 schrieb Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy:
> On 6/28/22 18:22, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
>> On 6/28/22 16:04, Emanuele Giuseppe Esposito wrote:
>>>>> Ok so far I did the following:
>>>>>
>>>>> - duplicated each public function as static {function}_locked()
>>>> They shouldn't be duplicates: function without _locked suffix should
>>>> take the mutex.
>>> By "duplicate" I mean same function name, with just _locked suffix.
>>> Maybe a better definition?
>>>
>>> Almost done preparing the patches!
>>
>> Why not just add _locked version and rework the version without suffix
>> to call _locked under mutex one in one patch, to just keep it all
>> meaningful?
>>
> 
> I mean, instead of:
> 
> patch 1: add a _locked() duplicate
> 
>   At this point we have a duplicated function that's just bad practice.
> 
> patch 2: remake version without prefix to call _locked() under mutex
>  
>   Now everything is correct. But we have to track the moment when
> something strange becomes something correct.
> 
> 
> do just
> 
> patch 1: rename function to _locked() and add a wrapper without suffix,
> that calls _locked() under mutex
> 
> 

That's what I always intended to do. As I said, I just used the wrong word.

Emanuele