[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHk-=whqdgepR+o844ePrRnvPh7-L9MYdOhbwmDfiTHSE8Oo9w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 4 May 2023 11:23:41 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Andrzej Hajda <andrzej.hajda@...el.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] locking changes for v6.4
On Thu, May 4, 2023 at 10:30 AM Andrzej Hajda <andrzej.hajda@...el.com> wrote:
>
> Later I have also showed/suggested Rust's approach [3][4]:
> - 'replace' for __xchg,
> - 'take' for fetch_and_zero
I don't think either of those are acceptable, and both are to me
*much* worse than the existing "fetch_and_zero()" that i915 uses.
That name just makes sense and explains what it does. There is no ambiguity.
I will not be taking a pull that makes a good name worse.
Naming matters, and "use a generic function" is not an excuse for
having bad names.
Linus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists