Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v3 01/11] util/qht: Document memory ordering assumptions

[Paolo Bonzini]

On 13/07/2016 19:50, Sergey Fedorov wrote:
> 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.

There are a few "gaurantee"s in the patch.

If you decide to go with my own patch
(http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.emulators.qemu/426431) for v4,
please add a

Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini <address@hidden>

Thanks,

Paolo