|
From: | Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy |
Subject: | Re: [PATCH v7 10/18] jobs: rename static functions called with job_mutex held |
Date: | Tue, 28 Jun 2022 18:26:32 +0300 |
User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.8.1 |
On 6/28/22 18:22, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
On 6/28/22 16:04, Emanuele Giuseppe Esposito wrote:Ok so far I did the following: - duplicated each public function as static {function}_locked()They shouldn't be duplicates: function without _locked suffix should take the mutex.By "duplicate" I mean same function name, with just _locked suffix. Maybe a better definition? Almost done preparing the patches!Why not just add _locked version and rework the version without suffix to call _locked under mutex one in one patch, to just keep it all meaningful?
I mean, instead of: patch 1: add a _locked() duplicate At this point we have a duplicated function that's just bad practice. patch 2: remake version without prefix to call _locked() under mutexNow everything is correct. But we have to track the moment when something strange becomes something correct.
do just patch 1: rename function to _locked() and add a wrapper without suffix, that calls _locked() under mutex -- Best regards, Vladimir
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |