lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Nov]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC 0/8] Move locking primitives into kernel/locking/
On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 06:29:21AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 05, 2013 at 01:10:44PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > During Kernel Summit Dave mentioned that there wasn't a clear maintainer for
> > locking bits.
> >
> > To remedy this Ingo suggested gathering all the various locking primitives and
> > lockdep into a single place: kernel/locking/.
> >
> > I would further like to propose a MAINTAINERS entry like:
> >
> > LOCKING
> > M: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>
> > M: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
> > M: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
> > M: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > M: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
> > T: git git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tip/tip.git locking/core
> > S: Maintained
> > F: kernel/locking/
> >
> > Because for most 'fun' locking discussions we usually end up with at least
> > those people anyway :-)
> >
> > Comments?
>
> OK, I am in.
>
> How are we organizing this? I could imagine divvying up the various
> types of locks, having a minimum number of reviews or acks coupled
> with a maximum review time, or just requiring the full set of reviews
> and acks given the criticality of locking code. Other approaches?

I would suggest something like an ack/review of at least 3/5, no hard
deadline, because as you say, its better to get locking right :-)



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-11-08 09:01    [W:0.101 / U:0.264 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site