Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 17 Aug 2009 09:08:29 +0100 | From | Alan Cox <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 2/7] kfifo: move out spinlock |
| |
> > Those wrappers happen to be called kfifo_get and kfifo_put > > Those names are wrong.
We've had them for years
> They're wrong because they are the spinlock-specific variant. What are > we going to call the mutex_lock-specific variant?
There isn't one.
> > > > 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.
Some random "10 second grep" examples, and this is also used more generally for the "without extra goo" variant of things
__set_special_pids __sysrq_put_key_op __sysrq_get_key_op __handle_sysrq __audit_getname __audit_inode __audit_node_child
and the without extra goo use includes such minor classics __get_user __put_user
the kernel contains lots and lots of
__foo()
foo() { spin_lock(bar); __foo() spin_unlock(bar) }
> > 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.
Why don't we fix all the really dumb naming mistakes then - things like the chrdev interfaces ? Massive churn, massive confusion. Patches are always being rejected (and rightfully so) for causing such messes.
And remember: its very hard to fix existing API documentation and books. It's doubly dangerous (and IMHO a complete no-no) to change the API of an interface if you don't change it such that old code will not reliably get a compile time failure.
Alan
| |