On Sunday, November 06, 2011 11:42:04 am Kostik Belousov wrote: > On Sun, Nov 06, 2011 at 07:22:51AM -0800, m...@freebsd.org wrote: > > On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 4:43 AM, Kostik Belousov <kostik...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Regarding the _vm_page_lock() vs. vm_page_lock_func(), the mutex.h has > > > a lot of violations in regard of the namespaces, IMO. The __* namespace > > > is reserved for the language implementation, so our freestanding program > > > (kernel) ignores the requirements of the C standard with the names like > > > __mtx_lock_spin(). Using the name _vm_page_lock() is valid, but makes > > > it not unreasonable for other developers to introduce reserved names. > > > So I decided to use the suffixes. vm_map.h locking is free of these > > > violations. > > > > I'm pretty sure that when the C standard says, "the implementation", > > they're referring to the compiler and OS it runs on. Which makes the > > FreeBSD kernel part of "the implementation", which is precisely why so > > many headers have defines that start with __ and then, if certain > > posix defines are set, also uses non-__ versions of the name. > > For libc providing parts, required by standard, you are right. > But our kernel is a freestanding program using a compiler, so in-kernel > uses of the reserved namespace is a violation.
I don't buy that argument at all. We have a libc for the kernel, it's called libkern and we own that, too. We depend on using _ and __ prefixes all over the kernel and trying to change that now would be excessively gratuitous. -- John Baldwin _______________________________________________ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
