From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932449AbVHRVOj (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Aug 2005 17:14:39 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932450AbVHRVOj (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Aug 2005 17:14:39 -0400 Received: from zproxy.gmail.com ([64.233.162.202]:52625 "EHLO zproxy.gmail.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932449AbVHRVOi convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Aug 2005 17:14:38 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=MtmRyKiE23nkSM7pWfY2wlKgSNBf63CGq+QFklLhhz0LdBQv3omCd1xsRhiaDswCVp63NI9Odzm0ruQrDRoC3JqnrcoUkOE61uXkvbT8RP+CGF2w09a9/bdDpXg1SAYRepKG2tmNNhSpCJUJIAcWqa5JWDbwwBg/QBSVa7xvY1M= Message-ID: <9a87484905081814145a58d160@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 23:14:38 +0200 From: Jesper Juhl To: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/7] rename locking functions - do the rename Cc: linux-kernel , Andrew Morton In-Reply-To: <20050818110051.GA6606@infradead.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Disposition: inline References: <200508180207.14574.jesper.juhl@gmail.com> <20050818110051.GA6606@infradead.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 8/18/05, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Thu, Aug 18, 2005 at 02:07:14AM +0200, Jesper Juhl wrote: > > This patch renames sema_init to init_sema, init_MUTEX to init_mutex and > > init_MUTEX_LOCKED to init_mutex_locked and at the same time creates 3 > > (deprecated) wrapper functions with the old names. > > What's the point? There's not need for totally gratious renaming. > I don't consider this "gratious renaming". I didn't do this just because I could. I did it because the names used in the locking API are quite inconsistent and not exactely pretty. I did it to make things cleaner, neater, more consistent - to do everyone a favour. Yes, it's just renaming of functions, it doesn't actually change any behaviour, but why should we have to live with less-than-perfect naming when we can clean it up? -- Jesper Juhl Don't top-post http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/T/top-post.html Plain text mails only, please http://www.expita.com/nomime.html