Re: [PATCH 2/7] kfifo: move out spinlock

[Alan Cox]

> > All over the kernel unlocked function versions have a leading _ name.
> > It's the kernel convention.
> 
> Thats is not true in every case. Have a look at list.h - That was the
> pattern i have implemented the new kfifo API.

Of course it isn't true in every case. Show me a *single* kernel
convention that is. It's also not true in no cases. foo_locked isn't used
much at all.

> The main reason to do this was to design a cleaner interface. Because
> there are very few users of this API, i thought it is a good time and
> chance to do this.
> 
> My first draft version does also not renamed this functions, but there
> was some concerns about the new functionality without modification the
> function names.
> 
> Also the remove of the spinlock made is necessary to rename the
> functions for preventing miss-use by out-of-kernel-tree drivers.

So if you didn't remove the spinlock you wouldn't have to change the API
and patch all the drivers.
 
> I think the break is not so hard if you believe. All you have to do is
> to replace or kfifo_get() into kfifo_out_locked() and kfifo_put() into
> kfifo_in_locked() if you really need the old behavior.

Which is very long winded. If you want longwinded and without breaking
stuff you can use

foo_unlocked() or unlocked_foo()

which do occur in the kernel (eg ioctl) when we want people to be
specifically aware of it although according to grep a little less often
than foo_locked() [discounting foo_is_locked which is general tests]

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/