[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200828081844.GM1362448@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2020 10:18:44 +0200
From: peterz@...radead.org
To: "Ahmed S. Darwish" <a.darwish@...utronix.de>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"Sebastian A. Siewior" <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/5] seqlock: seqcount_LOCKTYPE_t: Standardize naming
convention
On Fri, Aug 28, 2020 at 03:07:06AM +0200, Ahmed S. Darwish wrote:
> At seqlock.h, sequence counters with associated locks are either called
> seqcount_LOCKNAME_t, seqcount_LOCKTYPE_t, or seqcount_locktype_t.
>
> Standardize on "seqcount_LOCKTYPE_t" for all instances in comments,
> kernel-doc, and SEQCOUNT_LOCKTYPE() generative macro paramters.
> +#define SEQCOUNT_LOCKTYPE(locktype, locktype_t, preemptible, lockmember) \
> +typedef struct seqcount_##locktype { \
> + __SEQ_LOCK(locktype_t *lock); \
> +} seqcount_##locktype##_t; \
Hurmph, so my thinking was that the above 'locktype' is not actually a
type and therefore a misnomer.
But I see your point about it being a bit of a mess.
Would:
s/LOCKTYPE/LOCKNAME/g
s/seqcount_locktype_t/seqcount_LOCKNAME_t/g
help? Then we're consistently at: seqcount_LOCKNAME_t, which is a type.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists