RE: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] Add RCU support into Xen - Repost

["Santos, Jose Renato G" <joserenato.santos@xxxxxx>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Santos, Jose Renato G 
> Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2007 12:16 PM
> To: Keir Fraser; xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: Turner, Yoshio; Jose Renato Santos; G John Janakiraman
> Subject: RE: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] Add RCU support into Xen - Repost
> 
>  
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Keir Fraser [mailto:Keir.Fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
> > Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2007 10:02 AM
> > To: Santos, Jose Renato G; xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Cc: Turner, Yoshio; Jose Renato Santos; G John Janakiraman
> > Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] Add RCU support into Xen - Repost
> > 
> > On 30/1/07 22:46, "Santos, Jose Renato G" 
> > <joserenato.santos@xxxxxx> wrote:
> > 
> > >   That is a good idea, although I would prefer if we could
> > find better
> > > names for the rcu functions. Get/put may give the wrong 
> impression 
> > > that a reference counter is being incremented/decremented
> > which would
> > > not be the case. It could also give the wrong impression that the 
> > > matching "put" could be invoked any time later which may
> > leave us with
> > > an invalid domain pointer (if the pointer is kept beyond
> > the current
> > > Xen invocation). What about
> > > "find_domain_rcu()"/"end_find_domain_rcu()" ?
> > 
> > Find_domain_by_id_rcu()/end_domain_rcu()?
> > 
>  
>   Do we really need to have "by_id" on the name? Isn't 
> find_domain_rcu() clear enough?
>   After all, from the function definition it should be clear 
> that it takes a domid as parameter.
>   I like end_domain_rcu().
>   Renato
> 

  Another possibility could be
find_domain_rcu_lock()/domain_rcu_unlock()
  Just pick your favorite and I will go with it
  Thanks
  Renato

> >  -- Keir
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel