From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S964827AbVLSQf0 (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Dec 2005 11:35:26 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S964828AbVLSQf0 (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Dec 2005 11:35:26 -0500 Received: from mx3.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.1.138]:42903 "EHLO mx3.mail.elte.hu") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S964827AbVLSQfZ (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Dec 2005 11:35:25 -0500 Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 17:34:41 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar To: Andi Kleen Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Linus Torvalds , Andrew Morton , Arjan van de Ven , Steven Rostedt , Alan Cox , Christoph Hellwig , David Howells , Alexander Viro , Oleg Nesterov , Paul Jackson Subject: Re: [patch 09/15] Generic Mutex Subsystem, mutex-migration-helper-x86_64.patch Message-ID: <20051219163441.GD8160@elte.hu> References: <20051219013827.GE28038@elte.hu> <20051219043032.GH23384@wotan.suse.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20051219043032.GH23384@wotan.suse.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i X-ELTE-SpamScore: 0.0 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=0.0 required=5.9 tests=AWL autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.0.3 0.0 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Andi Kleen wrote: > On Mon, Dec 19, 2005 at 02:38:27AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > introduce the arch_semaphore type on x86_64, to ease migration to > > mutexes. > > As a small feedback I don't think the name arch_semaphore is very good > because it means nothing. How about counting_semaphore which is what > it actually is? yeah, this is one of the open issues, and i have no strong preference for any of the naming variants. I considered two things when i went for the 'arch_semaphore' name: 1) the name should be temporary, and we could make it 'struct semaphore' once the transition phase is over. Linus is totally correct suggesting that there's nothing wrong about the 'struct semaphore' name. It just happens to clash with my intended type-based categorization of 'known counting semaphores' from 'unknown semaphores'. 2) i wanted to signal that this is the per-arch semaphore implementation. another candidate name was 'struct __semaphore'. I like 'struct counting_semaphore' too, but maybe it's a bit too long as a name? Anyway, i'm very much open to suggestions how to name it best. Ingo