Peter Xu <pet...@redhat.com> writes:
> Add some explicit comment for both Readline and cpu_set/cpu_get helpers
> that they do not need the mon_lock protection.
Appreciated!
> Signed-off-by: Peter Xu <pet...@redhat.com>
> ---
> monitor.c | 5 +++--
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/monitor.c b/monitor.c
> index d6c3c08932..ae5bca9d7c 100644
> --- a/monitor.c
> +++ b/monitor.c
> @@ -207,7 +207,7 @@ struct Monitor {
> int suspend_cnt; /* Needs to be accessed atomically */
> bool skip_flush;
> bool use_io_thr;
> - ReadLineState *rs;
> + ReadLineState *rs; /* Only used in parser, so no lock needed. */
Pardon the ignorant question: why does "only used in parser" imply "no
lock needed"?
> MonitorQMP qmp;
> gchar *mon_cpu_path;
> BlockCompletionFunc *password_completion_cb;
> @@ -1313,7 +1313,7 @@ void qmp_qmp_capabilities(bool has_enable,
> QMPCapabilityList *enable,
> cur_mon->qmp.commands = &qmp_commands;
> }
>
> -/* set the current CPU defined by the user */
> +/* set the current CPU defined by the user. BQL needed. */
It's okay to start a comment containing a phrase with a lower case
letter, but you're turning this one into two sentences, and sentences
start in upper case. Can touch up on commit.
"BQL needed" is okay, just a bit terse; I'd write "Caller must hold
BQL". Could change that, too.
> int monitor_set_cpu(int cpu_index)
> {
> CPUState *cpu;
> @@ -1327,6 +1327,7 @@ int monitor_set_cpu(int cpu_index)
> return 0;
> }
>
> +/* BQL neeeded. */
Likewise.
> static CPUState *mon_get_cpu_sync(bool synchronize)
> {
> CPUState *cpu;
