Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 14 Jan 2009 11:24:50 +0100 | From | Cornelia Huck <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 2/2] async: Add some documentation. |
| |
On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 13:49:52 +1100, Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 05:43:06PM +0100, Cornelia Huck wrote: > > Add some kerneldoc to the async interface. > > > > Signed-off-by: Cornelia Huck <cornelia.huck@de.ibm.com> > > +/** > > + * async_schedule_special - schedule a function for asynchronous execution with a special running queue > > + * @ptr: function to execute asynchronously > > + * @data: data pointer to pass to the function > > + * @running: list head to add to while running > > + * > > + * Returns an async_cookie_t that may be used for checkpointing later. > > + * @running may be used in the async_synchronize_*_special() functions > > + * to wait on a special running queue rather than on the global running > > + * queue. > > + * Note: This function may be called from atomic or non-atomic contexts. > > + */ > > async_cookie_t async_schedule_special(async_func_ptr *ptr, void *data, struct list_head *running) > > 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.
| |