| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20090118163912.55f835a0@infradead.org> Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2009 16:39:12 -0800 From: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org> To: Cornelia Huck <cornelia.huck@...ibm.com> Cc: Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] async: Add some documentation. On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 11:24:50 +0100 Cornelia Huck <cornelia.huck@...ibm.com> wrote: > > Rather than polishing a turd, can we rename this "special" stuff to > > something more descriptive? I'm not the only person to complain > > about this. How about async_schedule_list()? > > > > After all, async_schedule_list() describes *exactly* how it is > > different to async_schedule(), while the "_special" keywords really > > suck when you consider code is supposed to be self documenting.... > > async_schedule_list() sounds better, agreed, but I'd prefer to change > that in a seperate patch. I had it as that at first. But it is ugly; naming a function after its arguments is useless; it should be named after what it does instead. I buy that "special" is not a good name. Would "local" be better? The name needs to convey that it is for a specific synchronization context.... -- Arjan van de Ven Intel Open Source Technology Centre For development, discussion and tips for power savings, visit http://www.lesswatts.org -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists