Re: [PATCH 1/7] rename locking functions - do the rename

[Jesper Juhl]

On 8/18/05, Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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 <jesper.juhl@xxxxxxxxx>
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
-
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/