On 13/07/2016 19:50, Sergey Fedorov wrote: > On 13/07/16 10:36, Paolo Bonzini wrote: >> >> On 13/07/2016 01:19, Emilio G. Cota wrote: >>> I wouldn't put those comments in the source--seqlock callers should >>> know what they're doing, and what barriers seqlocks imply. >> In general I'd agree with you, however in this case the "begin" calls >> are what implements QHT's guarantee *for the caller*, so I think it's >> worth having the comments. In other words, if for any reason you do >> anything before the read_begin and write_begin you still have to provide >> barrier semantics. It's not an explanation, it's a protection against >> future mistakes. > > Exactly :) > >> There's no need for such comment at read_retry and write_end callsites, >> though. > > Why? > >> Also, it's spelled "guarantee". :) > > Hmm, I can't see where the spelling isn't correct.
There are a few "gaurantee"s in the patch. If you decide to go with my own patch (http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.emulators.qemu/426431) for v4, please add a Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini <pbonz...@redhat.com> Thanks, Paolo