Re: [PATCH 2/2] async: Add some documentation.

[Arjan van de Ven]

On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 11:24:50 +0100
Cornelia Huck <cornelia.huck@xxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/