[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <53C57EDF.2090107@hp.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 15:19:59 -0400
From: Waiman Long <waiman.long@...com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
CC: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@...onical.com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Scott J Norton <scott.norton@...com>,
Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 0/2] lockdep: add support for queued rwlock
On 07/07/2014 08:50 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 01:39:09PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
>> v4->v5:
>> - Add patch 2 to update the locking selftest code to handle recursive
>> read_lock correctly. Patch 1 has no change.
> I removed all CONFIG_QUEUE_RWLOCK dependencies and made lockdep
> unconditionally assume the stronger constraints.
>
> Since we want all code 'clean' for the strongest possible
> implementation, everybody should run with those semantics, it doesn't
> make sense to have that configurable.
>
> Eg. someone on (say ARM, which doesn't -- yet -- have QUEUE_RWLOCK)
> could unwittingly introduce faulty code.
I think this is a better way to go. I didn't take this way in my patch
for fear that I may be pushing too much.
-Longman
--
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