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

[Gautham R Shenoy <ego@in.ibm.com>]

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. :)

The name is not much of a concern. I just didn't feel all that 
comfortable with lock_cpu_hotplug because locks are usually 
used to safeguard the data,while here we are trying to
maintain the *state* of the system.

Regards
ego
-- 
Gautham R Shenoy
Linux Technology Center
IBM India.
"Freedom comes with a price tag of responsibility, which is still a bargain,
because Freedom is priceless!"