[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150310124601.GC2896@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2015 13:46:01 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@...onical.com>,
Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] locking: ww_mutex: Allow to use rt_mutex instead of
mutex for the baselock
On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 05:57:08PM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> +static int __sched __mutex_lock_check_stamp(struct rt_mutex *lock,
> + struct ww_acquire_ctx *ctx)
On that; should we rename this to __ww_mutex_check_wound() ? or
something to more clearly reflect what it actually does?
--
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