Re: [PATCH v2 1/7] locking: Introduce local_lock()

Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2020-05-25T11:27:04Z

On 2020-05-25 09:12:14 [+0200], Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> > ( The other departure from spinlocks is that the 'spinlock_t' name,
> > without underscores, while making the API names such as spin_lock()
> > with an underscore, was a conscious didactic choice. Applying that
> > principle to local locks gives us the spinlock_t-equivalent name of
> > 'locallock_t' - but the double 'l' reads a bit weirdly in this
> > context. So I think using 'local_lock_t' as the data structure is
> > probably the better approach. )
>
> BTW., along this argument, I believe we should rename the local-lock
> header file from <linux/locallock.h> to <linux/local_lock.h>.
>
> The reason for the <linux/spinlock.h> naming is that the main data
> structure is spinlock_t.
>
> Having <linux/locallock.h> for 'struct local_lock' or 'local_lock_t'
> would introduce an idiosyncratic namespace quirk for no good reason.

agreed.

> Thanks,
>
> Ingo

Sebastian