Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 01/12] mutex: add atomic_dec_and_mutex_lock | From | Eric Paris <> | Date | Tue, 28 Apr 2009 18:46:00 -0400 |
| |
On Tue, 2009-04-28 at 13:27 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Mon, 27 Apr 2009 17:53:05 -0400 > Eric Paris <eparis@redhat.com> wrote: > > > Much like the atomic_dec_and_lock() function in which we take and hold a > > spin_lock if we drop the atomic to 0 this function takes and holds the > > mutex if we dec the atomic to 0. > > I sucked these patches into -mm, mainly for a bit of compile-time and > runtime testing. > > I read through them all on the previous iteration. IIRC my main > impression was that the code and the data structures were not > sufficiently well commented for that review to have been particularly > effective. Hopefully things improved there?
I added hundreds of lines of comments where I hope they will be useful..... > > It would be good if Al and/or hch and/or others could review this work. > Christoph has indicated that he will be doing this. > > You didn't reply to all my review comments from last time, but from a > quick random sample I see that some/most comments have been addressed. > Hopefully all were at least considered.
Every comment was considered, I promise!
> It's a little worrisome that my comment against this particular patch > was lost, and the patch was verbatim merged into Ingo's perfcounter > branch. Did anything else get lost?
Actually, by the time you commented on it the patch was already added and in use in Ingo's tree, which was why I didn't make the change I could (and I will) follow up with another patch to make the requested change rather than change this patch.
-Eric
| |