From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <v.shpilevoy@tarantool.org>
Received: from smtpng3.m.smailru.net (smtpng3.m.smailru.net [94.100.177.149])
 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256
 bits)) (No client certificate requested)
 by dev.tarantool.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 21FC6445320
 for <tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org>;
 Fri, 10 Jul 2020 23:33:35 +0300 (MSK)
References: <20200710075605.217824-1-gorcunov@gmail.com>
 <20200710075605.217824-3-gorcunov@gmail.com>
From: Vladislav Shpilevoy <v.shpilevoy@tarantool.org>
Message-ID: <5040e7f2-6222-98d2-f058-4b2e903e758d@tarantool.org>
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2020 22:33:33 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20200710075605.217824-3-gorcunov@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: Re: [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH 2/5] qsync: add a comment about sync
 txn in journal allocation
List-Id: Tarantool development patches <tarantool-patches.dev.tarantool.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.tarantool.org/mailman/options/tarantool-patches>, 
 <mailto:tarantool-patches-request@dev.tarantool.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.tarantool.org/pipermail/tarantool-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tarantool-patches-request@dev.tarantool.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.tarantool.org/mailman/listinfo/tarantool-patches>, 
 <mailto:tarantool-patches-request@dev.tarantool.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@gmail.com>, tml <tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org>

On 10/07/2020 09:56, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
> Otherwise it is not clear why we should setup a flag here.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@gmail.com>
> ---
>  src/box/txn.c | 7 +++++++
>  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/src/box/txn.c b/src/box/txn.c
> index 49b2b2649..4251b2092 100644
> --- a/src/box/txn.c
> +++ b/src/box/txn.c
> @@ -591,6 +591,13 @@ txn_journal_entry_new(struct txn *txn)
>  			txn_set_flag(txn, TXN_WAIT_SYNC);
>  			txn_set_flag(txn, TXN_WAIT_ACK);
>  		} else if (!txn_limbo_is_empty(&txn_limbo)) {
> +			/*
> +			 * There some sync entries on the
> +			 * fly thus wait for their completion
> +			 * even if this particular transaction
> +			 * doesn't touch sync space (each sync txn
> +			 * should be considered as a barrier).
> +			 */
>  			txn_set_flag(txn, TXN_WAIT_SYNC);
>  		}
>  	}

The comment is correct, but it is useless, sorry. You just
narrate what TXN_FORCE_ASYNC means. I don't see a point in
narrative comments. The code is self-explanatory already.

Я понимаю, что ты так в коде разбираешься, меняя его по чуть-чуть,
но плиз, постарайся сократить кол-во таких изменений. Они вообще
ничего не привносят кроме того, что историю затирают, и
вызывают споры вроде этого.