[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1156429015.3014.68.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org>
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2006 16:16:55 +0200
From: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
To: ego@...ibm.com
Cc: rusty@...tcorp.com.au, torvalds@...l.org, akpm@...l.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, arjan@...el.linux.com, mingo@...e.hu,
davej@...hat.com, dipankar@...ibm.com, vatsa@...ibm.com,
ashok.raj@...el.com
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 4/4] Rename lock_cpu_hotplug/unlock_cpu_hotplug
On Thu, 2006-08-24 at 19:33 +0530, Gautham R Shenoy wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 01:00:00PM +0200, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> > On Thu, 2006-08-24 at 16:04 +0530, Gautham R Shenoy wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > This patch renames lock_cpu_hotplug to cpu_hotplug_disable and
> > > unlock_cpu_hotplug to cpu_hotplug_enable throughout the kernel.
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > to be honest I dislike the new names too. You turned it into a refcount,
> > which is good, but the normal linux name for such refcount functions is
> > _get and _put..... and in addition the refcount technically isn't
> > hotplug specific, all you want is to keep the kernel data for the
> > processor as being "used", so cpu_get() and cpu_put() would sound
> > reasonable names to me, or cpu_data_get() cpu_data_put().
>
> Thus, choice of 'cpu_hotplug_disable' and 'cpu_hotplug_enable'
> was determined on the basis of its purpose, as in *what* it does
> as opposed to *how* it does it. :)
well.. it comes down to the difference of locking to protect data versus
locking to protect against a specific piece of code. Almost always the
later turns out to be a mistake...
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists