[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20091110212243.GW8424@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 13:22:43 -0800
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: William Allen Simpson <william.allen.simpson@...il.com>
Cc: Linux Kernel Developers <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH resent] Documentation: rw_lock lessons learned
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 02:55:44PM -0500, William Allen Simpson wrote:
> In recent weeks, two different network projects erroneously
> strayed down the rw_lock path. Update the Documentation
> based upon comments in those threads.
>
> Signed-off-by: William.Allen.Simpson@...il.com
> ---
> Documentation/spinlocks.txt | 14 ++++++++++++++
> 1 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/spinlocks.txt b/Documentation/spinlocks.txt
> index 619699d..c112052 100644
> --- a/Documentation/spinlocks.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/spinlocks.txt
> @@ -233,4 +233,18 @@ indeed), while write-locks need to protect themselves against interrupts.
>
> Linus
As you might guess, works for me!!!
Acked-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> +----
> +
> +The implications of spin_locks on memory are further described in:
> +
> + Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
> + (5) LOCK operations.
> + (6) UNLOCK operations.
> +
> +----
> +
> +We are working hard to remove reader-writer spinlocks (rw_lock) from the
> +network stack, so please don't add a new one. Instead, see:
> +
> + Documentation/RCU/rcu.txt
>
> --
> 1.6.3.3
>
>
--
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