lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Dec]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [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.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-12-11 22:11    [W:0.203 / U:0.328 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site