Hello, Lai. On Wed, May 07, 2014 at 12:27:13AM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote: > I considered several names (searching from an English dictionary) > assoc/pin/bind/attach/add...
Yeah, naming is hard. > The last I chose the winner "bind" from the last two candidates assoc&bind. > > worker_OP[_to]_pool() > OP(assoc/pin/bind/attach/add) the worker to OP_list of the > pool, do cpu-binding for the worker > OP_list > the list in the pool for the workers, iterating(when > cpu-binding and worker concurrency [un]bound) > OP_entry > worker entry for OP_list, for iterating(when cpu-binding and > worker concurrency [un]bound) So, VERB_list or VERB_entry doesn't really work well unless they're really for a list which is specifically created for the action. > OP_mutex > protects worker_OP_to_pool() protect cpu-binding for the workers, > protect iterating(when cpu-binding and worker concurrency [un]bound) > > every sentence has "bind", so I think "bind_mutex" is proper. > since I used "bind_mutex", I will use bind_list and worker_bind_pool(). I don't think it's necessary for all those entries to share the same prefix. It could have some benefits but as long as the locking requirements are clearly indicated in the comment, I don't think the benefit is large enough to overrule the downsides of such naming. > I don't refuse to use worker_attach_to_pool(), but I hope you choose > other names for me: > > attach_list VS bind_list > attach_mutex VS bind_mutex Just use worker->node and pool->workers for the list. I don't think attach_mutex sounds too bad. > I guess they will be attach_list&attach_mutex. it's a little pity to > drop the nice name bind_mutex. Why is bind_mutex any better than attach_mutex? Thanks. -- tejun -- 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/
