From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Waiman Long Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2 v2] dcache: get/release read lock in read_seqbegin_or_lock() & friend Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2013 13:36:05 -0400 Message-ID: <5231FB85.7070206@hp.com> References: <1378997735-22844-1-git-send-email-Waiman.Long@hp.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Alexander Viro , Thomas Gleixner , linux-fsdevel , Linux Kernel Mailing List , "Chandramouleeswaran, Aswin" , "Norton, Scott J" To: Linus Torvalds Return-path: Received: from g4t0016.houston.hp.com ([15.201.24.19]:33989 "EHLO g4t0016.houston.hp.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753682Ab3ILRgT (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Sep 2013 13:36:19 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 09/12/2013 12:38 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 7:55 AM, Waiman Long wrote: >> Change log >> ---------- >> v1->v2: >> - Rename the new seqlock primitives to read_seqexcl_lock* and >> read_seqexcl_unlock*. > Applied. Except I peed in the snow and renamed the functions > again.That whole "seqexcl" looked too odd to me. It not only looks a > bit too much like random noise, but it makes it seem a whole different > lock from the "seqlock" thing. > > I wanted to pattern the name after "write_seq[un]lock()", since it > most resembles that (not just in implementation, but in usage: the > traditional read-sequence isn't a lock, it's a begin/retry sequence, > so the usage pattern is totally different too, and the naming is > different). > > I ended up picking "read_seq[un]lock_excl()". I could have gone with > "excl_" as a prefix too, I guess. Whatever. Now the "_excl" thing > looks a bit like the "_bh"/"_irqX" context modifier, and I think it > matches our normal lock naming pattern better. > > Linus I think your new names are better than mine. I am not good at naming stuff. Thank for the merge and the rename. -Longman