-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 380
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
WT-10967 Remove the gcc.h comment and replace it with documentation pages. #10575
Conversation
34ac514
to
907eb50
Compare
/*! @page arch-toc-int-wt-dev Internal WiredTiger Development | ||
|
||
@subpage arch-concurrency | ||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This will be paired with an arch-usage-pattern
doc, coming soon.™
@luke-pearson , can I make a broader suggestion for efficiently progressing this PR: as the main change is to create a new section of technical documentation, working on and reviewing the new text in a Google Doc would be much easier than using PR style reviews. Then, once we're all agreed on the text in Google Doc it would be simply copy-pasted with the right formatting into the doc source ready for a quick PR review. |
You can but I'm going to decline. This content was largely adapted from prior code comments or previously reviewed PM-3220 docs. |
I've removed spin locks from the doc in b3cdd6c. |
Hi @luke-pearson , the goal is for us all to reach agreement on the revised text. If we can do that quickly and efficiently using the current PR comment approach then that's great, but if not we should switch temporarily to a Google Doc to help speed up any complex discussion. |
I feel like we are making good progress here so I'll keep it here. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM pending comments from other reviewers
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM
Appreciate all your efforts.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
lgtm
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
With a couple of trivial tweaks this LGTM!
Thanks everyone for contributing to an effective review!
@subsection lock-usage Lock usage | ||
A correctly used lock takes the lock for each access to the shared memory it guards. WiredTiger | ||
sometimes deviates from this model and reads variables outside the context of the relevant lock. | ||
Such instances are only permitted if reading inconsistent data is sufficient for the use case. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I agree with @luke-pearson and @ajmorton that it's worth specifically mentioning that variables that are only sometimes protected is a good idea. Otherwise readers of the code might incorrectly assume they've found a bug, or they might misunderstood how the code works in practice.
No description provided.