[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4AFD862E.6070105@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2009 11:15:42 -0500
From: William Allen Simpson <william.allen.simpson@...il.com>
To: Stefan Richter <stefanr@...6.in-berlin.de>
CC: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>, sclark46@...thlink.net,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linux Kernel Developers <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Subject: Re: Documentation: rw_lock lessons learned
Stefan Richter wrote:
> Stephen Hemminger wrote:
>> On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 14:13:03 -0500
>> Stephen Clark <sclark46@...thlink.net> wrote:
>>> How up to date is this doc?
>>>
>>> http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/rusty/kernel-locking/index.html
>>>
>> Out of date.
>> 1. Missing mutex's which have largely replaced semaphores.
>>
>> 2. Missing change to lock initialization in later kernels.
>>
>> 3. Missing description of lock dependency checker which should be in same guide.
>
> 4. The section on atomic reference counting should refer to <linux/kref.h>.
I'd also read that, and that's where I got some of my wrong thinking. But
that does point to Documentation/spin_locks.txt, which I took to be
authoritative (and followed). That's the reason spin_locks.txt should be
updated, as others are having the same problems....
Anybody have answers/updates to Linus's concerns about "pretty old and
bogus language"?
--
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