Re: [RFC 0/8] Move locking primitives into kernel/locking/

[Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>]

* Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> wrote:

> On Tue, 05 Nov 2013 13:10:44 +0100
> Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
> 
> > Hi all,
> > 
> > During Kernel Summit Dave mentioned that there wasn't a clear maintainer for
> > locking bits.
> > 
> > To remedy this Ingo suggested gathering all the various locking primitives and
> > lockdep into a single place: kernel/locking/.
> > 
> > I would further like to propose a MAINTAINERS entry like:
> > 
> > LOCKING
> > M:      Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>
> > M:      Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
> > M:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
> > M:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > M:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
> > T:      git git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tip/tip.git locking/core
> > S:      Maintained
> > F:      kernel/locking/
> 
> I wonder if it should be called kernel/locks, as that's less to type,
> smaller path names, and tastes good on bagels.

The subsystem and topic is generally called 'kernel locking' though, and 
that's what the tree branches have been called for the past couple of 
years as well.

Also, 'kernel lock' brings me back memories of the 'big kernel lock' - 
while 'kernel locks' brings verb/noun ambiguity and visuals of
'kernel locks up'.

As for typing legth: kernel/lo<Tab> autocompletion is your friend! :-)

All in one, I think kernel/locking/ is a better name.

Thanks,

	Ingo