Re: New manpage: locking(9)

[David Holland <dholland-tech%netbsd.org@localhost>]

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
dholland%netbsd.org@localhost