linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/7] locking: Introduce local

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

Message-ID: <20200525112700.tev37vrovevfrxqz@linutronix.de>
Date:   Mon, 25 May 2020 13:27:00 +0200
From:   Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
To:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
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()

On 2020-05-25 09:12:14 [+0200], Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> * 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.

agreed.

> Thanks,
> 
> 	Ingo

Sebastian