Re: Wording proposal for request_safe_update

I'm good with the name change and completely agree. Use *
request_thread_safe_update*().

On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 6:41 AM, Jerome CORNET <jerome.cornet@st.com> wrote:

> Agreed with Philipp. I am happy with request_thread_safe_update() (which is
> better
> than the original request_safe_update()), but indeed, "thread-safe" can be
> a bit
> misleading in the context of SystemC.
>
> I would also ultimately prefer something like async_request_update(),
> which additionally reflects well the use cases for this API.
>
> Jerome
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Philipp A. Hartmann [mailto:philipp.hartmann@offis.de]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2010 12:59 PM
> To: john.aynsley@doulos.com
> Cc: bpriya@cadence.com; David C Black; Jerome CORNET;
> systemc-p1666-technical@eda.org; Jeremiassen, Tor
> Subject: Re: Wording proposal for request_safe_update
>
> John,
>
> Well, we have lots of "regular" threads in SystemC models already. Wrt.
> to these SC_THREADs, "request_update" is already perfectly safe.
>
> That's why I think a 'request_thread_safe_update' may be misleading.
> But if the wording in the LRM is clear enough, I can of course live with
> this name as well.
>
> Greetings from Oldenburg,
> Philipp
>
> On 24/11/10 12:37, john.aynsley@doulos.com wrote:
>
> > I take your point that 'request_thread_safe_update' does not express the
> > use case, but it does express exactly what the function does: it is like
> > request_update except that it is thread-safe. So I think the name
> > expresses the intent as well as anything.
> >
> > John A
> >
> >
> >
> > From:
> > "Philipp A. Hartmann" <philipp.hartmann@offis.de>
> > To:
> > john.aynsley@doulos.com
> > Cc:
> > Jerome CORNET <jerome.cornet@st.com>, "systemc-p1666-technical@eda.org"
> > <systemc-p1666-technical@eda.org>, "Jeremiassen, Tor" <tor@ti.com>,
> David
> > C Black <dcblack@xtreme-eda.com>, bpriya@cadence.com
> > Date:
> > 24/11/2010 10:46
> > Subject:
> > Re: Wording proposal for request_safe_update
> >
> >
> >
> > John, All,
> >
> > 'request_thread_safe_update' does not really express the intended
> > use-case. It shall be used, when called from 'outside the kernel' or
> > asynchronously to the kernel's scheduler.
> >
> > So, I would go for something like
> > async_request_update
> > external_request_update
> >
> > Greetings from Oldenburg,
> > Philipp
>
>

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.