On Mon, Jul 31, 2006 at 04:06:15PM +0900, Masatake YAMATO wrote:
Hi,
> > The following set of patches adds a struct lw_rwlock (for lightweight
> > rwlock) which contains a spin_lock_t and an atomic_t. It is defined
> > in include/linux/lw_rwlock.h.
>
> I think the name, "lightweight" is too generic.
Fair enough.
> It implies just lw_rwlock is better than rwlock. The name may lead that people
> use lw_rwlock rather than rwlock any place through there are places where
> rwlock is better than lw_rwlock. So I looked for the name:
>
> sw_rwlock: seldom writing rwlock
> wp_rwlock: write pricey rwlock
write expensive, we_rwlock? I like your idea of stressing the fact that
the protected data has to be seldom modified if you intend to use this
kind of lock.
> rp_rwlock: read prioritized rwlock
>
I'll re-submit the patch with a proper naming for the rc3-mm1. However, I'd
like to get some feedback on the code itself: the current
whatever_rwlock code won't be debuggable with lockdep, and I'm not sure
there's not some more clever way to do it.
Thanks,
Frederik
-
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/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
