Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...>, Bart Van Assche <bart.vanassche@...>, Roland Dreier <rdreier@...>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...>, Matthew Wilcox <matthew@...>, Ingo Oeser <ioe-lkml@...>, Daniel Walker <dwalker@...>, <linux-kernel@...>
For normal locks. But if you have N number of outstanding
events you need to wait for the semaphore is the right primitive.
And it seems there is a not high but non trivial number
of places in the kernel who have a legitimate need for this.
Ok so you just want to rename it.
Fine for me. I always found up() and down() unintuitive anyways
(but it's admittedly better than "P" and "V" which some other systems use)
Because we still "counted completions" for some things and that's the
same code?
Rather i suspect the real problem is not the name, but just not sure
it gets abused. That is largely more a review problem and as far as I
can figure out basically all the usual reviewers take care of that
anyways. But renaming it also probably wouldn't hurt.
[IMHO I always thought we should have a maintained single "list of
things for reviewers to watch out for" list somewhere]
-Andi
--
