* Steven Rostedt <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, 05 Nov 2013 13:10:44 +0100
> Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > During Kernel Summit Dave mentioned that there wasn't a clear maintainer for
> > locking bits.
> >
> > To remedy this Ingo suggested gathering all the various locking primitives
> > and
> > lockdep into a single place: kernel/locking/.
> >
> > I would further like to propose a MAINTAINERS entry like:
> >
> > LOCKING
> > M: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>
> > M: Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]>
> > M: Oleg Nesterov <[email protected]>
> > M: "Paul E. McKenney" <[email protected]>
> > M: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]>
> > T: git git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tip/tip.git
> > locking/core
> > S: Maintained
> > F: kernel/locking/
>
> I wonder if it should be called kernel/locks, as that's less to type,
> smaller path names, and tastes good on bagels.
The subsystem and topic is generally called 'kernel locking' though, and
that's what the tree branches have been called for the past couple of
years as well.
Also, 'kernel lock' brings me back memories of the 'big kernel lock' -
while 'kernel locks' brings verb/noun ambiguity and visuals of
'kernel locks up'.
As for typing legth: kernel/lo<Tab> autocompletion is your friend! :-)
All in one, I think kernel/locking/ is a better name.
Thanks,
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
