[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.00.0912080728590.3560@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2009 07:35:27 -0800 (PST)
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
cc: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@...el.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
pm list <linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: Async resume patch (was: Re: [GIT PULL] PM updates for 2.6.33)
On Tue, 8 Dec 2009, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
> The wait queue plus the op_complete flag combo plays the role of the locking
> in the Linus' picture
Please just use the lock. Don't make up your own locking crap. Really.
Your patch is horrible. Exactly because your locking is horribly
mis-designed. You can't say things are complete from an interrupt, for
example, since you made it some random bitfield, which has unknown
characteristics (ie non-atomic read-modify-write etc).
The fact is, any time anybody makes up a new locking mechanism, THEY
ALWAYS GET IT WRONG. Don't do it.
I suggested using the rwsem locking for a good reason. It made sense. It
was simpler. Just do it that way, stop making up crap.
Linus
--
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