On Thu, Jun 18, 2026 at 2:47 PM Philipp Stanner <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Thu, 2026-06-18 at 11:47 +0000, Alice Ryhl wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 18, 2026 at 01:40:05PM +0200, Philipp Stanner wrote: > > > Moreover, this would be an opportunity to change the naming convention > > > to rcu::synchronize() > > > > > > But since Boqun & Alice are pushing for rcu::RcuKBox for the reason > > > that it seems desirable to explicitly highlight that that's a special > > > Box, I guess we should be consistent with that and also have "rcu" in > > > the name here. > > > > I prefer the naming of synchronize_rcu() here. > > We might be tempted to at least call it rcu_synchronize(), though. It's > also RcuKBox, not KBoxRcu. > > But I don't have hard emotions on that topic.
I don't think we should change the C name without quite good reasons. Alice
