User: Password:
|
|
Subscribe / Log in / New account

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?


Copyright © 2017, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds