Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [RFC][PATCH 4/4] Rename lock_cpu_hotplug/unlock_cpu_hotplug | From | Arjan van de Ven <> | Date | Thu, 24 Aug 2006 16:16:55 +0200 |
| |
On Thu, 2006-08-24 at 19:33 +0530, Gautham R Shenoy wrote: > On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 01:00:00PM +0200, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > > On Thu, 2006-08-24 at 16:04 +0530, Gautham R Shenoy wrote: > > > > > > > > > This patch renames lock_cpu_hotplug to cpu_hotplug_disable and > > > unlock_cpu_hotplug to cpu_hotplug_enable throughout the kernel. > > > > Hi, > > > > to be honest I dislike the new names too. You turned it into a refcount, > > which is good, but the normal linux name for such refcount functions is > > _get and _put..... and in addition the refcount technically isn't > > hotplug specific, all you want is to keep the kernel data for the > > processor as being "used", so cpu_get() and cpu_put() would sound > > reasonable names to me, or cpu_data_get() cpu_data_put(). > > Thus, choice of 'cpu_hotplug_disable' and 'cpu_hotplug_enable' > was determined on the basis of its purpose, as in *what* it does > as opposed to *how* it does it. :)
well.. it comes down to the difference of locking to protect data versus locking to protect against a specific piece of code. Almost always the later turns out to be a mistake...
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |