[lkml]   [2009]   [Apr]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 01/12] mutex: add atomic_dec_and_mutex_lock
On Tue, 2009-04-28 at 13:27 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Apr 2009 17:53:05 -0400
> Eric Paris <> 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
> 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.


 \ /
  Last update: 2009-04-29 00:51    [W:0.160 / U:0.596 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site