[lkml]   [2008]   [Jun]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [patch 02/41] cpu alloc: The allocator
Andrew wrote:
> > > > +#define CPU_PTR(__p, __cpu) SHIFT_PERCPU_PTR((__p), per_cpu_offset(__cpu))
> > >
> > > eek, a major interface function which is ALL IN CAPS!
> > >
> > > can we do this in lower-case? In a C function?
> >
> > No. This is a macro and therefore uppercase (there is macro magic going on
> > that ppl need to be aware of). AFAICR you wanted it this way last year. C
> > function not possible because of the type checking.
> urgh. This is a C-convention versus kernel-convention thing. The C
> convention exists for very good reasons. But it sure does suck.
> What do others think?

A few, key symbols get to be special ... short but distinctive names
that become (in)famous. The classic was "u", for the per-user
structure, aka the "user area", in old Unix kernels. In people's
names, a few one word or first names such as "Ike", "Madonna", "Ali",
"Tiger", "Cher", "Mao", "OJ", "Plato", "Linus", ... have become
distinctive and well known to many people.

How about "_pcpu", instead of CPU_PTR? "_pcpu" is a short, unique
(not currently in use) symbol that, tersely, says what we want to say.

Yes - it violates multiple conventions. "The Boss" (Bruce Springsteen)
gets to do that.

I won't rest till it's the best ...
Programmer, Linux Scalability
Paul Jackson <> 1.940.382.4214

 \ /
  Last update: 2008-06-02 11:33    [W:0.107 / U:3.016 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site