[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1222592370.16700.311.camel@lappy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2008 10:59:29 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Martin Bligh <mbligh@...gle.com>,
prasad@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, od@...e.com,
"Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@...hat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, hch@....de,
David Wilder <dwilder@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] LTTng relay buffer allocation, read, write
On Sat, 2008-09-27 at 19:10 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Sat, 2008-09-27 at 09:40 -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> > It does not provide _any_ sort of locking on buffer data. Locking should be done
> > by the caller. Given that we might think of very lightweight locking schemes,
Which defeats the whole purpose of the exercise, we want to provide a
single mechanism - including locking - that is usable to all. Otherwise
everybody gets to do the hard part themselves, which will undoubtedly
result in many broken/suboptimal locking schemes.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists