[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <54F99A9B.1050503@canonical.com>
Date: Fri, 06 Mar 2015 13:16:27 +0100
From: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@...onical.com>
To: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@...il.com>
CC: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] locking: ww_mutex: Allow to use rt_mutex instead
of mutex for the baselock
On 06-03-15 13:14, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 03/02/2015 09:46 AM, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
>> Hey,
>>
>> Op 02-03-15 om 04:20 schreef Mike Galbraith:
>>> On Fri, 2015-02-27 at 17:57 +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
>>>> This patch makes it possible to replace the base mutex by a rt_mutex. In
>>>> general one would not do this.
>>> I would argue that the thing should be born as a full fledged primitive,
>>> not a config option, as an rt_ww_mutex is the ww extension of rt_mutex.
>>> We have to do the global substitution in -rt, but why should it not
>>> exist in its own right in mainline?
>> Well I haven't seen any users that specifically need a rt_ww_mutex, but flipping the switch on ww_mutex could be useful for testing. :)
>
> Okay so what I the point made here? It is only about the config option,
> right? What are the preferences here:
> [ ] yes, the way it is now
Is my personal preference, but I'm not a locking expert(TM).
> [ ] yes, but somewhere else, please enter where you would like to see it
>
> [ ] yes, but keep it hidden (not selectable)
>
> [ ] what?
>
>> ~Maarten
>
>
> Sebastian
>
--
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