RE: Wording proposal for request_safe_update

I can.

-Bishnupriya

________________________________
From: owner-systemc-p1666-technical@eda.org [mailto:owner-systemc-p1666-technical@eda.org] On Behalf Of john.aynsley@doulos.com
Sent: Thursday, November 25, 2010 3:00 PM
To: David C Black; jerome.cornet@st.com; philipp.hartmann@offis.de
Cc: systemc-p1666-technical@eda.org
Subject: Re: Wording proposal for request_safe_update

David, Jerome, Philipp, All,

Okay, having re-read everyone's views, I propose async_request_update().

Can everyone live with that?

John A

From: David C Black <dcblack@xtreme-eda.com>
To: systemc-p1666-technical@eda.org
Date: 24/11/2010 14:26
Subject: Re: Wording proposal for request_safe_update
Sent by: owner-systemc-p1666-technical@eda.org

________________________________

At some level I don't care what the name is if properly documented in the standard; however, we might care if it generates a lot of bad coding because the name is misleading. I suggest we not choose a non-misleading name. Unfortunately, we cannot choose a fool proof name because fools are always outsmarting us...

On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 8:24 AM, David C Black <dcblack@xtreme-eda.com<mailto:dcblack@xtreme-eda.com>> wrote:
Bother, I meant to reply all...

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: David C Black <dcblack@xtreme-eda.com<mailto:dcblack@xtreme-eda.com>>
Date: Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 8:17 AM
Subject: Re: Wording proposal for request_safe_update
To: Jerome CORNET <jerome.cornet@st.com<mailto:jerome.cornet@st.com>>

OK, I was bit too fast in replying to that (hadn't fast forwarded on other e-mail). I think Philipp has a point. Considering this is a rarely used and very specialized method, how about a really long name?

  simulator_async_thread_safe_request()

I'm good with Jerome's async_thread_safe_request() too. I don't like external_thread_safe_request() as much because it could be called from an internal OS thread (not just a remote process).

It will discourage casual use. [ NOTE: I refrained from adding the modifier potentially_slow_and_dangerous ;) ]

On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 8:09 AM, David C Black <dcblack@xtreme-eda.com<mailto:dcblack@xtreme-eda.com>> wrote:
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<mailto: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<mailto:philipp.hartmann@offis.de>]
Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2010 12:59 PM
To: john.aynsley@doulos.com<mailto:john.aynsley@doulos.com>
Cc: bpriya@cadence.com<mailto:bpriya@cadence.com>; David C Black; Jerome CORNET; systemc-p1666-technical@eda.org<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:philipp.hartmann@offis.de>>
> To:
> john.aynsley@doulos.com<mailto:john.aynsley@doulos.com>
> Cc:
> Jerome CORNET <jerome.cornet@st.com<mailto:jerome.cornet@st.com>>, "systemc-p1666-technical@eda.org<mailto:systemc-p1666-technical@eda.org>"
> <systemc-p1666-technical@eda.org<mailto:systemc-p1666-technical@eda.org>>, "Jeremiassen, Tor" <tor@ti.com<mailto:tor@ti.com>>, David
> C Black <dcblack@xtreme-eda.com<mailto:dcblack@xtreme-eda.com>>, bpriya@cadence.com<mailto: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<http://www.mailscanner.info/>, and is
believed to be clean.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner<http://www.mailscanner.info/>, and is
believed to be clean.
-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.