On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 7:55 AM, Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@xxxxxx> wrote:
> Change log
> ----------
> v1->v2:
> - Rename the new seqlock primitives to read_seqexcl_lock* and
> read_seqexcl_unlock*.
Applied. Except I peed in the snow and renamed the functions
again.That whole "seqexcl" looked too odd to me. It not only looks a
bit too much like random noise, but it makes it seem a whole different
lock from the "seqlock" thing.
I wanted to pattern the name after "write_seq[un]lock()", since it
most resembles that (not just in implementation, but in usage: the
traditional read-sequence isn't a lock, it's a begin/retry sequence,
so the usage pattern is totally different too, and the naming is
different).
I ended up picking "read_seq[un]lock_excl()". I could have gone with
"excl_" as a prefix too, I guess. Whatever. Now the "_excl" thing
looks a bit like the "_bh"/"_irqX" context modifier, and I think it
matches our normal lock naming pattern better.
Linus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
