Re: New manpage: locking(9)

[David Holland]

On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 06:16:08PM +1000, matthew green wrote:
> > >
> > > I see no reason to capitulate and drop the original naming, refreshed
> > > for the current kernel design in favor of some invented linuxism.
> >
> > You're going to cause massive confusion if you write documentation
> > intended for kernel beginners that uses the terms "top half" and
> > "bottom half" to mean something different than Linux means. Like it or
> > not, the Linux use of these terms is the prevalent one and has been for
> > a decade or more.
>
> this is not my experience -- but this only makes me conclude that
> we should avoid using these terms entirely and use other ones that
> are either self-describing or something we can easily declare a
> definition of that doesn't conflict with others. define a set of
> properties in a context-type (can block, can be preempted, etc.)
> and then define the various contexts upon these.

concur, for what it's worth.

I have heard "high kernel" and "low kernel", not that I particularly
like these terms; but they're at least different and the provenance
chain of where I've heard them doesn't include any penguins.

--
David A. Holland
dhol...@netbsd.org

--
Posted automagically by a mail2news gateway at muc.de e.V.
Please direct questions, flames, donations, etc. to news-...@muc.de