On 13/07/2016 01:19, Emilio G. Cota wrote: > I wouldn't put those comments in the source--seqlock callers should > know what they're doing, and what barriers seqlocks imply.
In general I'd agree with you, however in this case the "begin" calls are what implements QHT's guarantee *for the caller*, so I think it's worth having the comments. In other words, if for any reason you do anything before the read_begin and write_begin you still have to provide barrier semantics. It's not an explanation, it's a protection against future mistakes. There's no need for such comment at read_retry and write_end callsites, though. Also, it's spelled "guarantee". :) Paolo > I'm OK with stating what the implied ordering is in the header > file, though.
