[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090427203616.GB3836@ioremap.net>
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 00:36:16 +0400
From: Evgeniy Polyakov <zbr@...emap.net>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>,
Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@...il.com>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>, paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
kaber@...sh.net, jeff.chua.linux@...il.com, laijs@...fujitsu.com,
jengelh@...ozas.de, r000n@...0n.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
benh@...nel.crashing.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] netfilter: use per-CPU r**ursive lock {XV}
Hi.
On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 12:46:48PM -0700, Linus Torvalds (torvalds@...ux-foundation.org) wrote:
> > All those references support my argument that the lock is being
> > used recursively in this case.
>
> What's so hard between understanding the difference between "used
> recursively" and "recursive lock"?
>
> THEY MEAN TWO TOTALLY DIFFERENT THINGS!
>
> The fact that you don't seem to understand that is one of the things I've
> been complaining about all along.
Just ot be sure readers will not lose the discssion topic: do you object
against naming or realizaion? If its about the former, does 'dog's
breath lock' proposed by Stephen fit?
--
Evgeniy Polyakov
--
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