Re: Wording proposal for request_safe_update

Good by me.

On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 3:30 AM, <john.aynsley@doulos.com> wrote:

> 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*<dcblack@xtreme-eda.com>>
> wrote:
> Bother, I meant to reply all...
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: *David C Black* <*dcblack@xtreme-eda.com* <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* <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*<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*<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*<philipp.hartmann@offis.de>
> ]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2010 12:59 PM
> To: *john.aynsley@doulos.com* <john.aynsley@doulos.com>
> Cc: *bpriya@cadence.com* <bpriya@cadence.com>; David C Black; Jerome
> CORNET; *systemc-p1666-technical@eda.org*<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* <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*<philipp.hartmann@offis.de>
> >
> > To:
> > *john.aynsley@doulos.com* <john.aynsley@doulos.com>
> > Cc:
> > Jerome CORNET <*jerome.cornet@st.com* <jerome.cornet@st.com>>, "*
> systemc-p1666-technical@eda.org* <systemc-p1666-technical@eda.org>"
> > <*systemc-p1666-technical@eda.org* <systemc-p1666-technical@eda.org>>,
> "Jeremiassen, Tor" <*tor@ti.com* <tor@ti.com>>, David
> > C Black <*dcblack@xtreme-eda.com* <dcblack@xtreme-eda.com>>, *
> bpriya@cadence.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* <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.