This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [PATCH v2] lowlevellock comments
- From: Bernie Ogden <bernie dot ogden at linaro dot org>
- To: Torvald Riegel <triegel at redhat dot com>
- Cc: "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos at redhat dot com>, libc-alpha <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2014 16:47:39 +0100
- Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] lowlevellock comments
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <54257E64 dot 1030006 at redhat dot com> <1412005158-24337-1-git-send-email-bernie dot ogden at linaro dot org> <1412598385 dot 30642 dot 31 dot camel at triegel dot csb>
Thanks. I've incorporated most of your comments locally.
Before I post another version, can we agree on the terms for the lock states?
>> >> +
>> >> + cond_locks are never in the taken state, they are either untaken or
>> >> + contended.
>> >
>> > Please use locked, or unlocked terms everywhere.
>>
>> I've gone for unlocked, locked and locked with waiters.
>
> My vote would be for "acquired" / "not acquired", as in "the lock has
> been acquired".
I also prefer acquired/not acquired, but didn't feel strongly enough
about it to argue the point with Carlos. I would prefer not to keep
switching between terminologies, though.
Carlos (or anyone else), do you feel strongly that locked/unlocked is
the better terminology here?