Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 17 Aug 2009 00:36:17 -0700 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 2/7] kfifo: move out spinlock |
| |
On Mon, 17 Aug 2009 07:48:20 +0100 Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote:
> > kfifo has no business assuming that the caller wants to use > > spin_lock() locking. > > > > If we want to add wrapper helpers around kfifo to reduce code > > duplication in callers, and if one of those wrapper helpers provides > > spinlock-based locking then fine. > > Those wrappers happen to be called kfifo_get and kfifo_put
Those names are wrong.
They're wrong because they are the spinlock-specific variant. What are we going to call the mutex_lock-specific variant?
> > But the happens-to-use-spin_lock functions shouldn't be called > > kfifo_get(), because that steals namespace from the unlocked functions, > > and makes the naming for the happens-to-use-mutex_lock functions look > > weird. > > All over the kernel unlocked function versions have a leading _ name. > It's the kernel convention.
tisn't. radix-tree, rbrtee, idr, list_head, prio_tree, flex_array - none of them use that convention.
> The other thing I must say I dislike about these patches is the > gratuitious 'let's rename all the functions' approach it takes. The kfifo > API is documented, used and random API of the year type changes mess > stuff up and cause unneeded churn.
It fixes naming mistakes. Long-term it is the correct thing to do. Best to do it now before we get more callers.
| |