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 04:52:42 -0800,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org> wrote:

> 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?

I like that one best so far.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-01-19 14:13    [W:0.055 / U:0.596 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site