On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 03:25:33PM -0400, Alex Kogan wrote:

+/*
+ * set_locked_empty_mcs - Try to set the spinlock value to _Q_LOCKED_VAL,
+ * and by doing that unlock the MCS lock when its waiting queue is empty
+ * @lock: Pointer to queued spinlock structure
+ * @val: Current value of the lock
+ * @node: Pointer to the MCS node of the lock holder
+ *
+ * *,*,* -> 0,0,1
+ */
+static __always_inline bool __set_locked_empty_mcs(struct qspinlock *lock,
+						   u32 val,
+						   struct mcs_spinlock *node)
+{
+	return atomic_try_cmpxchg_relaxed(&lock->val, &val, _Q_LOCKED_VAL);
+}

That name is nonsense. It should be something like:

static __always_inline bool __try_clear_tail(...)

+/*
+ * pass_mcs_lock - pass the MCS lock to the next waiter
+ * @node: Pointer to the MCS node of the lock holder
+ * @next: Pointer to the MCS node of the first waiter in the MCS queue
+ */
+static __always_inline void __pass_mcs_lock(struct mcs_spinlock *node,
+					    struct mcs_spinlock *next)
+{
+	arch_mcs_spin_unlock_contended(&next->locked, 1);
+}

I'm not entirely happy with that name either; but it's not horrible like
the other one. Why not mcs_spin_unlock_contended() ?

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel