Re: [RFC][PATCH 4/4] Rename lock_cpu_hotplug/unlock_cpu_hotplug

[Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org>]

On Thu, 2006-08-24 at 19:33 +0530, Gautham R Shenoy wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 01:00:00PM +0200, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> > On Thu, 2006-08-24 at 16:04 +0530, Gautham R Shenoy wrote:
> > > 
> > > 
> > > This patch renames lock_cpu_hotplug to cpu_hotplug_disable and
> > > unlock_cpu_hotplug to cpu_hotplug_enable throughout the kernel.
> > 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > to be honest I dislike the new names too. You turned it into a refcount,
> > which is good, but the normal linux name for such refcount functions is
> > _get and _put.....  and in addition the refcount technically isn't
> > hotplug specific, all you want is to keep the kernel data for the
> > processor as being "used", so cpu_get() and cpu_put() would sound
> > reasonable names to me, or cpu_data_get() cpu_data_put().
> 
> Thus, choice of 'cpu_hotplug_disable' and 'cpu_hotplug_enable'
> was determined on the basis of its purpose, as in *what* it does 
> as opposed to *how* it does it. :)

well.. it comes down to the difference of locking to protect data versus
locking to protect against a specific piece of code. Almost always the
later turns out to be a mistake...