On Thu, Dec 11, 2025 at 02:12:19PM +0100, Marco Elver wrote: > What's a better name?
That must be the hardest question in programming; screw this P-vs-NP debate :-) > context_lock_struct -> and call it "context lock" rather than "context > guard"; it might work also for things like RCU, PREEMPT, BH, etc. that > aren't normal "locks", but could claim they are "context locks". > > context_handle_struct -> "context handle" ... Both work for me I suppose, although I think I have a slight preference to the former: 'context_lock_struct'. One other possibility is wrapping things like so: #define define_context_struct(name) ... // the big thing #define define_lock_struct(name) define_context_struct(name)
