[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <53E0EDD2.50600@canonical.com>
Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2014 16:44:34 +0200
From: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@...onical.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Shuah Khan <shuahkhan@...il.com>
CC: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@...com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Scott J Norton <scott.norton@...com>,
Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2 v6] locking/selftest: Support queued rwlock
op 05-08-14 16:41, Peter Zijlstra schreef:
> On Tue, Aug 05, 2014 at 08:07:28AM -0600, Shuah Khan wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 7:28 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Maybe I wasn't clear; but I meant you should extend the lock tests to
>>> cover the full qrwlock semantics.
>>>
>>> That means we also need tests like:
>>>
>>> RL(X1);
>>> IRQ_ENTER();
>>> RL(X2);
>>> IRQ_EXIT();
>>>
>>> To fully validate that in_interrupt exception to fairness etc..
>> A bit off topic for this patch, however relevant for tests in general.
>> Is there a reason why these locking selftests need to be under lib?
>> Can they be consolidated under tools/testing/selftests?
> tools/ seems wrong as its very much not userspace.
Could be moved to kernel/locking though now that all other locking moved there. :-)
~Maarten
--
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