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 Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 08:37:48AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> 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 :-)

Works for me!

Thanx, Paul



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-11-09 00:41    [W:0.096 / U:0.112 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site