[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200525071214.GC329373@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 25 May 2020 09:12:14 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/7] locking: Introduce local_lock()
* Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org> wrote:
> ( The other departure from spinlocks is that the 'spinlock_t' name,
> without underscores, while making the API names such as spin_lock()
> with an underscore, was a conscious didactic choice. Applying that
> principle to local locks gives us the spinlock_t-equivalent name of
> 'locallock_t' - but the double 'l' reads a bit weirdly in this
> context. So I think using 'local_lock_t' as the data structure is
> probably the better approach. )
BTW., along this argument, I believe we should rename the local-lock
header file from <linux/locallock.h> to <linux/local_lock.h>.
The reason for the <linux/spinlock.h> naming is that the main data
structure is spinlock_t.
Having <linux/locallock.h> for 'struct local_lock' or 'local_lock_t'
would introduce an idiosyncratic namespace quirk for no good reason.
Thanks,
Ingo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists