| |||||||||||||
The obvious name ...The obvious name ...Posted Aug 5, 2009 20:56 UTC (Wed) by felixfix (subscriber, #242)Parent article: The realtime preemption endgame
Not going to create an account there just for one suggestion. If someone submits this and wins a free beer, enjoy!
The obvious name is raw_spinlock, as opposed to cooked_spinlock. There ie great UNIX tradition in this.
(Log in to post comments)
The obvious name ... Posted Aug 6, 2009 9:28 UTC (Thu) by eliezert (subscriber, #35757) [Link]
I would call the busywait spinlocks.
This is what they do, and this will also make it obvious they should be used rarely. I like your cooked / raw proposal, but I think a name the would discourage unnecessary use would be better.
The obvious name ... Posted Aug 6, 2009 18:03 UTC (Thu) by cpeterso (guest, #305) [Link] busywait_spinlock is a great name! It accurately describes its behavior and discourages people from using it (without deep thought).
The obvious name ... Posted Aug 10, 2009 14:44 UTC (Mon) by kjp (subscriber, #39639) [Link]
I thought atomic_spinlock wasn't too bad, but I like busywait_spinlock.
Of course, I do think it would be better to rename the spinlock itself if it no longer does that....
I guess to facilitate the changeover you could have atomic_lock or busywait_lock (spin is a bit redundant) and mutex, and only very old code would need a typdef for the now non existant 'spinlock' type.
The obvious name ... Posted Aug 7, 2009 0:40 UTC (Fri) by Kamilion (subscriber, #42576) [Link]
Eh, I signed up just to post up "snooze_lock".
Seemed pretty self-explanatory to me. :)
And there's always the alarm-clock connotation, someone always manages to mash the snooze button.
The obvious name ... Posted Aug 7, 2009 1:08 UTC (Fri) by martinfick (subscriber, #4455) [Link]
But, it's not a snooze lock, it's a spin lock! A snooze lock would imply that a process goes to sleep and yields the processor. A spin lock does not yield, it's in fact the opposite of a "sleep" lock.
If I understand the naming dilemma, the problem is that the old spin_locks which will not be renamed are in fact becoming sleep locks. If your naming convention is adopted, you would have spin_locks which sleep, and snooze_locks which spin!
So, raw_spinlock or real_spinlock seem more appropriate to me.
The obvious name ... Posted Aug 10, 2009 18:08 UTC (Mon) by kjp (subscriber, #39639) [Link]
It's incredibly sad if the spinlocks wouldn't get renamed. Linux already has incredibly badly named things (struct class anyone?) but now it's also getting incapable of making a mass rename due to what - proprietary or out of tree code?
|
|||||||||||||