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

[Sebastian Andrzej Siewior]

On 2020-05-25 09:12:14 [+0200], Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> * 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.

agreed.

> Thanks,
> 
> 	Ingo

Sebastian