Messages in this thread | | | From | Linus Walleij <> | Date | Tue, 20 Nov 2018 09:46:50 +0100 | Subject | Re: [PATCH 2/3] gpio: mockup: add locking |
| |
On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 10:09 AM Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@bgdev.pl> wrote: > pt., 16 lis 2018 o 22:43 Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org> napisał(a):
> > __gpio_* > > I tend to dislike __underscore_notation because I feel it > > is semantically ambguous. I prefer a proper name, even > > to the point that I prefer inner_function_foo over __foo, > > but it's your driver and I might be a bit grumpy. :) > > I think this is a common and intuitive pattern in the kernel codebase. > Many subsystems and drivers use '__' to mark functions that execute > internal logic and expect certain locks to be held etc.
You say it yourself: interpretation depends on context.
I might be especially stupid for being unable to discern meaning from context in these cases and so what is intuitive for some is just not intuitive for me.
Example: set_bit() vs __set_bit()
Apparently some kernel developers think it is completely obvious that the latter is the unlocked non-atomic version of set_bit(). However I was confused for years with no idea as to what the difference was.
Had it simply been named set_bit_nonatomic(), at the cost of a few characters, confusion on my part would be avoided and at least to me the world would be a better place.
> If you don't mind, I'd like to leave it like this.
No big deal, keep it as is :)
Yours, Linus Walleij
| |