On 13/07/16 10:36, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > > 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.
Exactly :) > There's no need for such comment at read_retry and write_end callsites, > though. Why? > Also, it's spelled "guarantee". :) Hmm, I can't see where the spelling isn't correct. Thanks, Sergey
