[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1428522581.11099.7.camel@stgolabs.net>
Date: Wed, 08 Apr 2015 12:49:41 -0700
From: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>
To: Jason Low <jason.low2@...com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
Aswin Chandramouleeswaran <aswin@...com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] locking: Simplify mutex and rwsem spinning code
On Wed, 2015-04-08 at 12:39 -0700, Jason Low wrote:
> This patchset applies on top of tip.
>
> Jason Low (2):
> locking/mutex: Further refactor mutex_spin_on_owner()
> locking/rwsem: Use a return variable in rwsem_spin_on_owner()
>
> kernel/locking/mutex.c | 14 ++++----------
> kernel/locking/rwsem-xadd.c | 25 ++++++++++++-------------
> 2 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)
Meh. Personally I wouldn't mid leaving these files alone for a change,
the code is already pretty readable imho. Of course its a matter of
taste, so I won't argue.
Thanks,
Davidlohr
--
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