lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Jan]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/2] async: Add some documentation.
On Mon, 19 Jan 2009 13:27:44 +0100
Cornelia Huck <cornelia.huck@de.ibm.com> wrote:

> > >
> > > 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.
>
> Hm, I don't like _local too much. How about _subset, or _context, or
> _scope?

or _domain ?

and phrase stuff such that you have synchronization domains?

--
Arjan van de Ven Intel Open Source Technology Centre
For development, discussion and tips for power savings,
visit http://www.lesswatts.org


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-01-19 13:53    [W:0.049 / U:0.972 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site