| |||||||||||||
The obvious name ...The obvious name ...Posted Aug 6, 2009 9:28 UTC (Thu) by eliezert (subscriber, #35757)In reply to: The obvious name ... by felixfix Parent article: The realtime preemption endgame
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.
(Log in to post comments)
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.
|
|||||||||||||