On Mon, 17 Aug 2009 07:48:20 +0100 Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote:

quoted text
> > kfifo has no business assuming that the caller wants to use
> > spin_lock() locking.
> > 
> > If we want to add wrapper helpers around kfifo to reduce code
> > duplication in callers, and if one of those wrapper helpers provides
> > spinlock-based locking then fine.
> 
> Those wrappers happen to be called kfifo_get and kfifo_put

Those names are wrong.

They're wrong because they are the spinlock-specific variant.  What are
we going to call the mutex_lock-specific variant?

quoted text
> > But the happens-to-use-spin_lock functions shouldn't be called
> > kfifo_get(), because that steals namespace from the unlocked functions,
> > and makes the naming for the happens-to-use-mutex_lock functions look
> > weird.
> 
> All over the kernel unlocked function versions have a leading _ name.
> It's the kernel convention.

tisn't.  radix-tree, rbrtee, idr, list_head, prio_tree, flex_array -
none of them use that convention.

quoted text
> The other thing I must say I dislike about these patches is the
> gratuitious 'let's rename all the functions' approach it takes. The kfifo
> API is documented, used and random API of the year type changes mess
> stuff up and cause unneeded churn.

It fixes naming mistakes.  Long-term it is the correct thing to do. 
Best to do it now before we get more callers.

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