Re: [PATCH 3/9 v7] Introduce target_{stop,continue}_ptid

[Doug Evans <dje@google.com>]

On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 9:00 AM, Doug Evans <dje@google.com> wrote:
> [...]
> To advance the discussion,
> the async case is the subtle case IMO.  Evidently (and I'm just going
> by what I see, there may be more data here) someone (*1) looked at the
> name "target_stop" and thought it was async (which is probably what

Bleah.  s/async/synchronous/

> I'd do).  The function comment doesn't specify.  One could argue it's
> sufficient to just fix the function comment, but if we're going to
> have a mix of similar functions, some of which are async and some
> sync, then IMO we should also make the difference stand out in the
> code where it's read.  I'd be happy with a convention where all async
> functions ended with _async or _no_wait (the latter reads better to
> me), but I'm guessing I'd be happy with a different convention as
> well.
>
> FAOD,
> there is a bug, but it's not one you specifically need to address.
> I pointed it out because it's a data point that contributes to the discussion.
>
> (*1): I've looked at git log and blame. I'm speaking generically here
> because I think this is unlikely to be a one-off kind of issue. Plus I
> can well imagine me making a similar mistake too.  Plus the bug got
> through code review.