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

Lock naming

Lock naming

Posted Sep 29, 2009 14:44 UTC (Tue) by nettings (subscriber, #429)
Parent article: The realtime preemption mini-summit

> There was some talk of the best names for "atomic spinlocks"; they could be "core locks," "little kernel locks," or "dread locks."

Well, some locks are to heavy, some are too lightweight. Since these are Just Right, they are obviously goldilocks.


(Log in to post comments)

Lock naming

Posted Sep 29, 2009 20:42 UTC (Tue) by niv (guest, #8656) [Link]

"Well, some locks are to heavy, some are too lightweight. Since these are Just Right, they are obviously goldilocks."

Just have to applaud :).

Humor aside, we really do have to get the naming right - there's enough confusion as it is, as Jon points out. Lock names really need to be self-explanatory, or at very least, imply behavior that's somewhat in the ballpark of actual behavior. Spinlocks that can sleep should have big, flashing red neon warning signs or some equivalent thereof in their name, ideally.

Lock naming

Posted Sep 29, 2009 21:08 UTC (Tue) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link]

Call them sleepy locks then.

Lock naming

Posted Sep 30, 2009 12:03 UTC (Wed) by nevets (subscriber, #11875) [Link]

goldielocks was indeed mentioned. But the sleepy locks were not. I'll have to have Jon add that one to the list of possibilities. :-)

Lock naming

Posted Oct 11, 2009 16:34 UTC (Sun) by efexis (guest, #26355) [Link]

Sleepy sounds like they might run a bit slow and probably need to sleep... if the locks may end up sleeping due to external conditions then it should be a narcolocksy :-)

Lock naming

Posted Sep 30, 2009 17:32 UTC (Wed) by doogie (guest, #2445) [Link]

You mean baby bear.


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