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