On 14/07/16 16:56, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > > 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.
Ah, I see this now :) > > 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 <pbonz...@redhat.com> Thanks, Sergey
