[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1364900174.18374.19.camel@laptop>
Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2013 12:56:14 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@...onical.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
daniel.vetter@...ll.ch, x86@...nel.org,
dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, linaro-mm-sig@...ts.linaro.org,
robclark@...il.com, tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...e.hu,
linux-media@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] mutex: add support for reservation style locks,
v2
On Thu, 2013-02-28 at 11:25 +0100, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
> +mutex_reserve_lock_slow and mutex_reserve_lock_intr_slow:
> + Similar to mutex_reserve_lock, except it won't backoff with
> -EAGAIN.
> + This is useful when mutex_reserve_lock failed with -EAGAIN, and you
> + unreserved all reservation_locks so no deadlock can occur.
> +
I don't particularly like these function names, with lock
implementations the _slow post-fix is typically used for slow path
implementations, not API type interfaces.
--
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