Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 11 Dec 2009 22:07:13 +0100 | From | Jarek Poplawski <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2] Documentation: rw_lock lessons learned |
| |
William Allen Simpson wrote, On 12/11/2009 06:01 PM:
> William Allen Simpson wrote: >> In recent weeks, two different network projects erroneously >> strayed down the rw_lock path. Update the Documentation >> based upon comments by Eric Dumazet and Paul E. McKenney in >> those threads. >> >> Merged with editorial changes by Stephen Hemminger. >> >> Signed-off-by: William.Allen.Simpson@gmail.com >> Acked-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> >> > A month ago, I'd taken the final line "Ho humm.." of Linus' > response to mean he wasn't interested. But at the local > discussion yesterday, I'm told that's just a typical Linusism.
Why would he write 6 paragraphs if he wasn't interested?
> > The thread diverged into discussion of another document entirely. > > I'm not the person to update this document with any of the other > information about global locks and tasklists and such. But surely > somebody else could handle that in another patch. > > Anybody have answers/updates to Linus's concerns about "pretty old > and bogus language"? Would folks be interested in the update? > Does anybody know which list(s) would be better for discussion?
I guess, you could literally start with removing this "global interrupt lock", adding "the example of a _good_ case of rwlocks", plus Stephen's "it is not just networking" fix in v3.
Jarek P.
| |