lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Dec]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [patch 04/23] locking: Convert raw_spinlock to arch_spinlock


    On Sun, 6 Dec 2009, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
    >
    > Linus suggested to convert the raw_ to arch_ locks and cleanup the
    > name space instead of using an artifical name like core_spin,
    > atomic_spin or whatever
    >
    > No functional change.

    Ok, I'm obviously biased, since I suggested this as a possible solution to
    the naming wars, but I have to say that I like this patch regardless of
    any of the other patches in the series. IOW, even without any issue of
    then re-using 'raw_spinlock' for the non-preemptable one, I like how this
    kind of change JustMakesSense(tm):

    > --- linux-2.6-tip.orig/arch/alpha/include/asm/spinlock_types.h
    > +++ linux-2.6-tip/arch/alpha/include/asm/spinlock_types.h
    > @@ -7,7 +7,7 @@
    >
    > typedef struct {
    > volatile unsigned int lock;
    > -} raw_spinlock_t;
    > +} arch_spinlock_t;
    >
    > #define __RAW_SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED { 0 }
    >

    ie I just think that even just looking at the patch, this kind of change
    simply makes sense. The architectures declare their own per-architecture
    "arch_spinlock", and we can then do whatever we want at a higher level
    around that notion.

    That said, it _is_

    51 files changed, 164 insertions(+), 164 deletions(-)

    but it seems to really be mainly the obvious arch header files and the
    tracing infrastructure, so while it's 51 files, the impact seems to be
    reasonably well-contained.

    So I like it, but maybe the arch people hate it?

    Linus


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2009-12-06 19:13    [W:0.026 / U:29.604 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site