Re: [PATCH v7 10/18] jobs: rename static functions called with job_mutex held

[Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy]

On 6/28/22 18:22, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
> On 6/28/22 16:04, Emanuele Giuseppe Esposito wrote:
> > > > Ok so far I did the following:
> > > >
> > > > - duplicated each public function as static {function}_locked()
> > > They shouldn't be duplicates: function without _locked suffix should
> > > take the mutex.
> > By "duplicate" I mean same function name, with just _locked suffix.
> > Maybe a better definition?
> >
> > Almost done preparing the patches!
>
> Why not just add _locked version and rework the version without suffix to call 
> _locked under mutex one in one patch, to just keep it all meaningful?

I mean, instead of:

patch 1: add a _locked() duplicate

  At this point we have a duplicated function that's just bad practice.

patch 2: remake version without prefix to call _locked() under mutex
 
  Now everything is correct. But we have to track the moment when something strange becomes something correct.


do just

patch 1: rename function to _locked() and add a wrapper without suffix, that 
calls _locked() under mutex



--
Best regards,
Vladimir