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

[Ingo Molnar]

* Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx> 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.

Thanks,

	Ingo