Re: [PATCH] Unify names of all lock objects

[Freddie Chopin <freddie_chopin at op dot pl>]

On Mon, 2017-01-30 at 07:28 +0100, Sebastian Huber wrote:
> I think this _object postfix is quite redundant. You can add this
> next 
> to anything.

I agree, but we need something, because there are functions like
__tz_lock() and __tz_unlock(), so I could not name the object
"__tz_lock". I decided to go with the postfix, which was used in the
situations exactly as this one. The only lock that I did not change was
named __tz_lock_object, so you see where I got this idea from.

Alternatively I could do "__<name>_[non]recursive_lock" and this would
not conflict with any function name, but it's not really better than
the "object" suffix.

Regards,
FCh