From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from [87.239.111.99] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dev.tarantool.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E1136EC55; Thu, 15 Jul 2021 15:20:51 +0300 (MSK) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 dev.tarantool.org 2E1136EC55 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=tarantool.org; s=dev; t=1626351651; bh=zT6fVAiGhvWOCjroH7aBVO1B2UOtKz13acRFDjyeK60=; h=Date:To:Cc:References:In-Reply-To:Subject:List-Id: List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe: From:Reply-To:From; b=AkZIlwCBC1gnUQigdcHdR06VR7tJaMEtufvCVbt84ZcJGmMQjcTvbHQaSoinbjwks gT07Fcb7XwRTZVAPakcjWrYbXl8WSSr+6C5a+2lMn2i0rS2ETQNOelhSsL00PY8fDE usweeum9rJlovCnD68l33S8S0iIjyDKx40JlwcV0= Received: from mail-lf1-f54.google.com (mail-lf1-f54.google.com [209.85.167.54]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by dev.tarantool.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 09D846EC55 for ; Thu, 15 Jul 2021 15:20:49 +0300 (MSK) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 dev.tarantool.org 09D846EC55 Received: by mail-lf1-f54.google.com with SMTP id i5so9525568lfe.2 for ; Thu, 15 Jul 2021 05:20:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:content-transfer-encoding :in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=WxZxBVzV5DMwsFjIOun657RCgMane6TYejd37L0sO+g=; b=f9icOEfjzs1yoFY7Zdt7beACkEl9DefaimXFvKXEs1nCcRNLeSM6c28JcYYF5wsWZI 3ouI+23vowI65w6pe4CXhEHahqrUDI4s/Sqpk20MjMALcUVKw4IshRKXgyMOG2EIUFcH vF5hsMDyw5JFSu2QGWxZL9ZuMv1Uu5A8DDtVEt54YpV2nbG+moubynUoDNkZ6vieVUmc dVPpdKvwuAMsc5EbPCbSxf4ae0tHRjU00gYj4pTw0PNEjxzYDt7OIAxLEOqUTvnbsQta TUwlsm3zv9uKG5mrr5R1jAy+RGbPWHNYRODohnl6ZtCMmjOi7QU8inOQohz/Zcm4ENaC qvSg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531XsW/TtjGj/2ePv1AVeEaRbOqMzmQHk5fqEpIJhq2iBjB2BtIC fhElLhh9iRqLWr0LK6gKd4+a081QNHJ89Q== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwqDvGVqpPBo6TEbs97mgEAWQ8f8f+3AlaJhVrA4FbWIGwWKDMl/WfMcinqBRsvVNEOmWDEOg== X-Received: by 2002:ac2:4250:: with SMTP id m16mr3253768lfl.485.1626351648197; Thu, 15 Jul 2021 05:20:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from grain.localdomain ([5.18.255.97]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id n22sm399455lfu.181.2021.07.15.05.20.46 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Thu, 15 Jul 2021 05:20:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: by grain.localdomain (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 32BED5A001E; Thu, 15 Jul 2021 15:20:46 +0300 (MSK) Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2021 15:20:46 +0300 To: Serge Petrenko Cc: tml , Vladislav Shpilevoy Message-ID: References: <20210714212328.701280-1-gorcunov@gmail.com> <20210714212328.701280-4-gorcunov@gmail.com> <76124bb2-95fa-5312-e9ae-8c25c527bca2@tarantool.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/2.0.7 (2021-05-04) Subject: Re: [Tarantool-patches] [RFC v5 3/5] limbo: gather promote tracking into a separate structure X-BeenThere: tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34 Precedence: list List-Id: Tarantool development patches List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , From: Cyrill Gorcunov via Tarantool-patches Reply-To: Cyrill Gorcunov Errors-To: tarantool-patches-bounces@dev.tarantool.org Sender: "Tarantool-patches" On Thu, Jul 15, 2021 at 03:00:11PM +0300, Serge Petrenko wrote: > > > 15.07.2021 14:46, Cyrill Gorcunov пишет: > > On Thu, Jul 15, 2021 at 02:28:46PM +0300, Serge Petrenko wrote: > > > > +static void > > > > +txn_limbo_promote_create(struct txn_limbo_promote *pmt) > > > > +{ > > > > + vclock_create(&pmt->terms_map); > > > > + pmt->terms_max = 0; > > > > +} > > > > + > > > I don't like the name (limbo->promote, struct txn_limbo_promote), > > > but can't come up with a better one. > > > > > > The structure doesn't hold a specific promote. It's more like "promote > > > history", or "terms seen". > > > > > > Maybe something like "term history" ? "term tracker" ? > > > "remote term set", "term set" ? > > > > > > Just a suggestion, my names are not too good. > > Sure! How about > > > > struct txn_terms { > > latch lock; > > vclock_t map; > > uint64_t map_max; > > }; > > Maybe txn_limbo_terms then? > txn_terms sounds like something related to transactions, > but transactions know nothing of terms. Sounds OK! Will rename.