linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/3] gpio: mockup: add locking

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 20 Nov 2018 09:46:50 +0100
From:   Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
To:     Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>
Cc:     Bamvor Jian Zhang <bamv2005@...il.com>,
        Uwe Kleine-König 
        <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>,
        "open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] gpio: mockup: add locking

On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 10:09 AM Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl> wrote:
> pt., 16 lis 2018 o 22:43 Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org> napisał(a):

> > __gpio_*
> > I tend to dislike __underscore_notation because I feel it
> > is semantically ambguous. I prefer a proper name, even
> > to the point that I prefer inner_function_foo over __foo,
> > but it's your driver and I might be a bit grumpy. :)
>
> I think this is a common and intuitive pattern in the kernel codebase.
> Many subsystems and drivers use '__' to mark functions that execute
> internal logic and expect certain locks to be held etc.

You say it yourself: interpretation depends on context.

I might be especially stupid for being unable to discern
meaning from context in these cases and so what is
intuitive for some is just not intuitive for me.

Example:
set_bit() vs __set_bit()

Apparently some kernel developers think it is completely
obvious that the latter is the unlocked non-atomic version
of set_bit(). However I was confused for years with no
idea as to what the difference was.

Had it simply been named set_bit_nonatomic(), at the
cost of a few characters, confusion on my part would be
avoided and at least to me the world would be a better
place.

> If you don't mind, I'd like to leave it like this.

No big deal, keep it as is :)

Yours,
Linus Walleij