From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04057C49ED7 for ; Fri, 13 Sep 2019 10:25:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CDCE920830 for ; Fri, 13 Sep 2019 10:25:42 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org CDCE920830 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Received: from localhost ([::1]:42116 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1i8ilq-0007nF-1U for qemu-devel@archiver.kernel.org; Fri, 13 Sep 2019 06:25:42 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:34912) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1i8il1-0007Ec-TL for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 13 Sep 2019 06:24:52 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1i8il0-0005Fx-Tf for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 13 Sep 2019 06:24:51 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:51714) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1i8il0-0005Fa-OT for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 13 Sep 2019 06:24:50 -0400 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx06.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.16]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 697B118C8936 for ; Fri, 13 Sep 2019 10:24:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from work-vm (unknown [10.36.118.12]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3FE2A5C219; Fri, 13 Sep 2019 10:24:48 +0000 (UTC) Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2019 11:24:45 +0100 From: "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" To: Paolo Bonzini Message-ID: <20190913102445.GA2682@work-vm> References: <20190911190622.7629-1-dgilbert@redhat.com> <20190911190622.7629-2-dgilbert@redhat.com> <20190912174524.GD2722@work-vm> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.12.1 (2019-06-15) X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.16 X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.6.2 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.70]); Fri, 13 Sep 2019 10:24:49 +0000 (UTC) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 209.132.183.28 Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 1/5] rcu: Add automatically released rcu_read_lock variant X-BeenThere: qemu-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: quintela@redhat.com, berrange@redhat.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, ehabkost@redhat.com Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: "Qemu-devel" * Paolo Bonzini (pbonzini@redhat.com) wrote: > On 12/09/19 19:45, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote: > > Do you think it's best to use the block version for all cases > > or to use the non-block version by taste? > > The block version is quite nice, but that turns most of the patches > > into 'indent everything'. > > I don't really know myself. OK, new version coming up with a mix - the diffs do look a lot more hectic with the block version. > On first glance I didn't like too much the non-block version and thought > it was because our coding standards does not include variables declared > in the middle of a block. I took that as being a coding standard to avoid confusing humans and since it wasn't visible it didn't matter too much. > However, I think what really bothering me is > "AUTO" in the name. What do you think about "RCU_READ_LOCK_GUARD()"? > The block version would have the additional prefix "WITH_". Oh well, if it's just the name we can fix that. > We could also add LOCK_GUARD(lock) and WITH_LOCK_GUARD(lock), using > QemuLockable for polymorphism. I even had patches a while ago (though > they used something like LOCK_GUARD(guard_var, lock). I think we > dropped them because of fear that the API was a bit over-engineered. Probably a separate set. Dave > Paolo -- Dr. David Alan Gilbert / dgilbert@redhat.com / Manchester, UK