[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160922074932.GV5008@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2016 09:49:32 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Waiman Long <waiman.long@....com>
Cc: Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@...il.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
Jason Low <jason.low2@....com>,
Scott J Norton <scott.norton@....com>,
Douglas Hatch <doug.hatch@....com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 3/5] futex: Throughput-optimized (TO) futexes
On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 07:37:34PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> On 09/21/2016 02:59 AM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> >On Tue, 2016-09-20 at 09:42 -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> >>This patch introduces a new futex implementation called
> >>throughput-optimized (TO) futexes.
> >nit: 'TO' sounds way too much like timeout... TP? You even use 'to' as
> >shorthand for timeout in the next patch.
>
> I agree. I am not that satisfied with the TO name. So I will change it to TP
> in my next revision of the patch. Thanks for the suggestion.
I'd leave out the TO part entirely (or only mention it in changelogs).
That is, I'd call the futex ops: FUTEX_LOCK and FUTEX_UNLOCK.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists