Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v3 01/11] util/qht: Document memory ordering assumptions

[Sergey Fedorov]

On 14/07/16 16:56, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
> 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.

Ah, I see this now :)

>
> 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 <address@hidden>

Thanks,
Sergey