From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:53621)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <paolo.bonzini@gmail.com>) id 1V9Fxr-0007SJ-OK
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 13 Aug 2013 10:53:01 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <paolo.bonzini@gmail.com>) id 1V9Fxj-0003tK-5z
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 13 Aug 2013 10:52:51 -0400
Received: from mail-wg0-x232.google.com ([2a00:1450:400c:c00::232]:62568)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <paolo.bonzini@gmail.com>) id 1V9Fxi-0003t6-Ve
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 13 Aug 2013 10:52:43 -0400
Received: by mail-wg0-f50.google.com with SMTP id m15so1182473wgh.5
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Tue, 13 Aug 2013 07:52:42 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: Paolo Bonzini <paolo.bonzini@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <520A4814.9070005@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2013 16:52:04 +0200
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.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>
In-Reply-To: <5209F7C7.7000907@siemens.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: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.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>

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.

Paolo