[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20161007161314.GD3142@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2016 18:13:14 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Waiman Long <waiman.long@....com>, Jason Low <jason.low2@....com>,
Ding Tianhong <dingtianhong@...wei.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Will Deacon <Will.Deacon@....com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Imre Deak <imre.deak@...el.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
Terry Rudd <terry.rudd@....com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ibm.com>,
Chris Wilson <chris@...is-wilson.co.uk>,
Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...ll.ch>,
Rob Clark <robdclark@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -v4 1/8] locking/drm: Kill mutex trickery
On Fri, Oct 07, 2016 at 08:58:43AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Ugh. I think the concept is fine, but can we place make these enum's
> be all upper case or something to make them really stand out visually.
OK.
> The other choice would be to just make the choices be negative (==
> recursive), zero (== failed) or positive (== got lock), which allows
> for the same value re-use for the non-recursive case, and you could
> avoid the enum entirely.
I thought about that, but liked the enum better for having to then spell
it out.
I'll go make the enum shout and add comment as you suggest.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists