Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 11 Dec 2009 19:08:28 +0100 (CET) | From | Thomas Gleixner <> | Subject | Re: [patch 8/9] Documentation: Fix invalid rcu assumptions |
| |
On Fri, 11 Dec 2009, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 08:07:45AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, 11 Dec 2009, David Howells wrote: > > > > > Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote: > > > > > > > -197 * we use RCU protection here > > > > +196 * caller must be holding the RCU readlocke > > > > > > You mean "readlock" I suspect. > > > > Or maybe he's talking about ye olde readlocke, used widely for OS research > > throughout the middle ages. You still find that spelling in some really > > old CS literature. > > Interestingly enough, they also tended to split it into two words and > capitalize it, as can be seen by searching for "Read Locke" at > > http://faculty.uml.edu/enelson/modern07.htm
The good thing about "Read Locke" is: there is no "Write Locke".
Thanks, tglx
| |