Re: [PATCH printk v1 01/13] printk: rename cpulock functions

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 03:57:27PM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 15:48:08 +0106
> John Ogness <john.ogness@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > It is because (as in the example above), taking this "lock" does not
> > provide synchronization to data. It is only synchronizing between
> > CPUs. It was Steven's suggestion to call the thing a cpu_sync object and
> > nobody in the RT Track seemed to disagree.
> 
> I love causing trouble ;-)
> 
> Actually, it wasn't just my suggestion. IIRC, I believe Peter Zijlstra was
> against calling it a lock (Peter, you can use lore to see the context here).

All I remember is that it was in a room and I was late, I can't even
remember what City we were all in at the time. Was this Lisbon?

Anyway, as Steve said, it isn't really a strict exclusion thing, it only
avoids the most egregious inter-cpu interleaving. I'm down with
goldi-locks, something has to have that name :-)