Docs: Qutex updated notes -- still WIP

docs/design/qutexes.md

@@ -171,16 +171,18 @@ we can implement a LockSet::registerAndTryAcquireAll() method, but that's for
 us to think about later.
 
 ```
+/* We'll need to rename current class LockSpec to LockSet. */
 class LockSet
 {
 	/* Add this either inside of LockSet or outside of it -- depends on whether
 	 * it's we can get it to compile because I'm seeing some potential circular
 	 * definition dependencies.
 	 */
-	typedef std::pair<TicketLock, LockDesc> LockDesc;
+	typedef std::pair<Qutex, LockerAndInvokerList::iterator>
+		LockUsageDesc;
 
-	/* Find a LockDesc -- useful below */
+	/* Find a LockUsageDesc -- useful below */
-	LockDesc &getLockDesc(TicketLock &criterionLock)
+	LockUsageDesc &getLockUsageDesc(Qutex &criterionLock)
 	{
 		for (auto &reqLock: requiredLocks) {
 			if (reqLock.first == &criterionLock) { return reqLock; }
@@ -235,7 +237,7 @@ LockSet::release()
 }
 ```
 
-Now, the TicketLock class is what we'll use for synchronization. It's just a
+Now, the Qutex class is what we'll use for synchronization. It's just a
 combination of 2 atomic<bool> and a std::list.
 
 ```
@@ -250,24 +252,24 @@ class SpinLock
 class LockSet
 {
 	/* Modify the std::vector of SpinLock to instead be:
-	 *	std::vector<LockDesc> locks;
+	 *	std::vector<LockUsageDesc> locks;
 	 */
-	std::vector<LockDesc> locks;
+	std::vector<LockUsageDesc> locks;
 }
 
-class TicketLock
+class Qutex
 {
 public:
-	std::list<LockerAndInvoker>::iterator register(
+	typedef std::list<LockerAndInvoker>		LockerAndInvokerList;
-		const LockerAndInvoker &lockvoker
+
-		)
+	LockerAndInvokerList::iterator register(const LockerAndInvoker &lockvoker)
 	{
 		/** EXPLANATION:
 		 * Just insert the lockvoker into the rear of the list.
 		 *
 		 * Then, since we want to store the 
 		 */
-		std::list<LockerAndInvoker>::iterator it;
+		LockerAndInvokerList::iterator it;
 
 		lock.acquire();
 		queue.push_back(lockvoker);
@@ -278,7 +280,7 @@ public:
 		return it;
 	}
 
-	void unregister(std::list<LockerAndInvoker>::iterator it)
+	void unregister(LockerAndInvokerList::iterator it)
 	{
 		lock.acquire();
 		queue.erase(it);
@@ -386,10 +388,10 @@ public:
 			 * If queue.size==3 and LockSet.size()==5, then just
 			 * push_back(failedAcquirer).
 			 *
-			 * It is impossible for a TicketLock queue to have only one
+			 * It is impossible for a Qutex queue to have only one
 			 * item in it, yet for that Lockvoker item to have failed to
-			 * acquire the ticketLock. Being the only item in the ticketQ
+			 * acquire the Qutex. Being the only item in the ticketQ
-			 * means that you must succeed at acquiring the TicketLock.
+			 * means that you must succeed at acquiring the Qutex.
 			 */
 			int swapPosition = min(
 				queue.size(),
@@ -405,12 +407,12 @@ public:
 			 *
 			 * Consider 2 different locks with 2 different items in them
 			 * each, both of which come from 2 particular requests:
-			 *	TicketLock1: Lockvoker1, Lv2
+			 *	Qutex1: Lockvoker1, Lv2
-			 *	TicketLock2: Lv2, Lv1
+			 *	Qutex2: Lv2, Lv1
 			 *
 			 * Moreover, both of these lockvokers have requiredLocks.size()==2,
 			 * and the particular 2 locks that each one requires are indeed
-			 * TicketLock1 and TicketLock2.
+			 * Qutex1 and Qutex2.
 			 *
 			 * This particular setup basically means that in TL1's queue, Lv1
 			 * will wakeup since it's at the front of TL1. It'll successfully
@@ -432,9 +434,9 @@ public:
 			 *
 			 * This state of affairs is stable and will persist unless these
 			 * queues are reordered in some way. Hence: that's why we rotate the
-			 * items in a TicketLockQ after backing off of it. Backing off means
+			 * items in a QutexQ after backing off of it. Backing off means
 			 * Not necessarily that the calling LockVoker failed to acquire
-			 * THIS PARTICULAR TicketLock, but rather than it failed to acquire
+			 * THIS PARTICULAR Qutex, but rather than it failed to acquire
 			 * ALL of its required locks.
 			 *
 			 * Hence, if we are backing out, we should also rotate the items
@@ -466,7 +468,7 @@ public:
 		 * the prev owner was the previous front item; or whether we should
 		 * always wake up the new front item.
 		 *
-		 * Recall that because a sequence can acquire a ticketLock without being
+		 * Recall that because a sequence can acquire a Qutex without being
 		 * at the front of the queue (because it could merely be in the top X%
 		 * of items instead), this means that during a call to release(), the
 		 * owning async sequence may not be at the front -- it needs only be in
@@ -513,6 +515,6 @@ public:
 public:
 	SpinLock					lock;
 	std::atomic<bool>			isOwned;
-	std::list<LockerAndInvoker>	queue;
+	LockerAndInvokerList		queue;
 };
 ```