Re: [PATCH printk v1 01/13] printk: rename cpulock functions

[Petr Mladek]

On Fri 2022-02-11 22:04:48, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 03:57:27PM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 15:48:08 +0106
> > John Ogness <john.ogness@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > 
> > > It is because (as in the example above), taking this "lock" does not
> > > provide synchronization to data. It is only synchronizing between
> > > CPUs. It was Steven's suggestion to call the thing a cpu_sync object and
> > > nobody in the RT Track seemed to disagree.
> > 
> > I love causing trouble ;-)
> > 
> > Actually, it wasn't just my suggestion. IIRC, I believe Peter Zijlstra was
> > against calling it a lock (Peter, you can use lore to see the context here).
> 
> All I remember is that it was in a room and I was late, I can't even
> remember what City we were all in at the time. Was this Lisbon?
> 
> Anyway, as Steve said, it isn't really a strict exclusion thing, it only
> avoids the most egregious inter-cpu interleaving. I'm down with
> goldi-locks, something has to have that name :-)

You troublemakers :-)

OK, I know, I am the troublemaker here.

Best Regards,
Petr