| |||||||||||||
The obvious name ...The obvious name ...Posted Aug 7, 2009 1:08 UTC (Fri) by martinfick (subscriber, #4455)In reply to: The obvious name ... by Kamilion Parent article: The realtime preemption endgame
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.
(Log in to post comments)
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?
|
|||||||||||||