Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 11 Jul 2006 11:22:15 -0700 | From | "Paul E. McKenney" <> | Subject | Re: 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/
| |