On Thu, Dec 03, 2020 at 03:38:40PM +0100, Alexander Lochmann wrote:
>
>
> On 03.12.20 15:04, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 03:26:28PM +0200, Alexander Lochmann wrote:
> > > Hi folks,
> > >
> > > I've updated the lock documentation according to our finding for
> > > transaction_t.
> > > Does this patch look good to you?
> >
> > I updated the annotations to match with the local usage, e.g:
> >
> > * When commit was requested [journal_t.j_state_lock]
> >
> > became:
> >
> > * When commit was requested [j_state_lock]What do you mean by local
> > usage?
> The annotations of other members of transaction_t?
Yes, I'd like the annotations of the other objects to be consistent,
and just use j_state_lock, j_list_lock, etc., for the other annotations.
> Shouldn't the annotation look like this?
> [t_journal->j_state_lock]
> It would be more precise.
It's more precise, but it's also unnecessary in this case, since all
of the elements of the journal have a j_ prefix, elements of a
transaction_t have a t_ prefix, etc. There is also no other structure
element which has a j_state_lock name *other* than in journal_t.
Cheers,
- Ted
