Re: [PATCH v3 1/4] wait.[ch]: Introduce the simple waitqueue (swait) implementation

[Thomas Gleixner]

On Tue, 20 Oct 2015, Daniel Wagner wrote:
> +
> +extern void swake_up(struct swait_queue_head *q);
> +extern void swake_up_all(struct swait_queue_head *q);
> +extern void swake_up_locked(struct swait_queue_head *q);

I intentionally named these functions swait_wake* in my initial
implementation for two reasons:

  - typoing wake_up vs. swake_up only emits a compiler warning and does
    not break the build
    
  - I really prefer new infrastructure to have a consistent prefix
    which reflects the "subsystem". That's simpler to read and simpler
    to grep for.

> +extern void __prepare_to_swait(struct swait_queue_head *q, struct swait_queue *wait);
> +extern void prepare_to_swait(struct swait_queue_head *q, struct swait_queue *wait, int state);
> +extern long prepare_to_swait_event(struct swait_queue_head *q, struct swait_queue *wait, int state);
> +
> +extern void __finish_swait(struct swait_queue_head *q, struct swait_queue *wait);
> +extern void finish_swait(struct swait_queue_head *q, struct swait_queue *wait);

Can we please go with the original names?

swait_prepare()
swait_prepare_locked()
swait_finish()
swait_finish_locked()

Hmm?

> +#define swait_event(wq, condition)					\

Here we have the same swait vs. wait problem as above. So either we
come up with a slightly different name or have an explicit type check
in __swait_event event.

Thanks,

	tglx


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