[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200828082418.GA7161@lx-t490>
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2020 10:24:18 +0200
From: "Ahmed S. Darwish" <a.darwish@...utronix.de>
To: peterz@...radead.org
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
Hi :)
On Fri, Aug 28, 2020 at 10:18:44AM +0200, peterz@...radead.org wrote:
> 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.
>
Sounds good, will do.
Thanks,
--
Ahmed S. Darwish
Linutronix GmbH
Powered by blists - more mailing lists