Re: {NOT a PATCH} Corrections please ...

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
From: Dave Chinner
Date: Tuesday, August 19, 2008 - 6:52 pm

On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 06:30:11PM -0700, Kevin Diggs wrote:

Rather than documenting exactly how the queuing and wakeup occurs on
all functions, you should document it once. i.e. that completions
currently use FIFO queuing. It is probably best to do this at the
definition of the struct completion.

The reason is that if the implementation changes (e.g. to support
priorities and inheritence) the comments are then incorrect and
then there's lots of comments to remove^Wchange.

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com
--
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
{NOT a PATCH} Corrections please ..., Kevin Diggs, (Tue Aug 19, 6:30 pm)
Re: {NOT a PATCH} Corrections please ..., Dave Chinner, (Tue Aug 19, 6:52 pm)
Re: {NOT a PATCH} Corrections please ..., Ingo Molnar, (Wed Aug 20, 2:59 am)
Re: {NOT a PATCH} Corrections please ..., Stefan Richter, (Wed Aug 20, 3:57 am)
Re: {NOT a PATCH} Corrections please ..., Kevin Diggs, (Wed Aug 20, 12:59 pm)
Re: {NOT a PATCH} Corrections please ..., Ingo Molnar, (Thu Aug 21, 3:30 am)
Re: {NOT a PATCH} Corrections please ..., Kevin Diggs, (Thu Aug 21, 12:47 pm)
Re: {NOT a PATCH} Corrections please ..., Ingo Molnar, (Fri Aug 22, 12:02 am)