lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Jul]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: SRCU-based notifier chains
On Tue, Jul 11, 2006 at 02:03:50PM -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Jul 2006, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
> > Looks sane to me. A couple of minor comments interspersed.
>
> Okay, I'll submit it with a proper writeup.
>
> > > +/*
> > > + * SRCU notifier chain routines. Registration and unregistration
> > > + * use a mutex, and call_chain is synchronized by SRCU (no locks).
> > > + */
> >
> > Hmmm... Probably my just failing to pay attention, but haven't noticed
> > the double-header-comment style before.
>
> As far as I know, I made it up. It seemed appropriate, since the first
> header applies to the entire group of three routines that follow whereas
> the second header is kerneldoc just for the next function.

Fair enough -- I missed the fact that the first header applies to
all three functions.

> > > /*
> > > - * Notifier chains are of three types:
> > > + * Notifier chains are of four types:
> >
> > Is it possible to subsume one of the other three types?
> >
> > Might not be, but have to ask...
>
> In principle we could replace blocking notifiers, but in practice we
> can't.
>
> We can't just substitute one for the other for two reasons: SRCU notifiers
> need special initialization which the blocking notifiers don't have, and
> SRCU notifiers have different time/space tradeoffs which might not be
> appropriate for all existing blocking notifiers.

Again, fair enough!

Thanx, Paul
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2006-07-11 20:25    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site