[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5533bdea-4250-759d-1a5d-007914aad2ff@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2021 16:20:58 -0400
From: Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [tip: locking/urgent] locking/ww_mutex: Treat ww_mutex_lock()
like a trylock
On 3/17/21 3:58 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 02:32:27PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
>> On 3/17/21 1:45 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>>> +# define __DEP_MAP_WW_MUTEX_INITIALIZER(lockname, class) \
>>>> + , .dep_map = { \
>>>> + .key = &(class).mutex_key, \
>>>> + .name = (class).mutex_name, \
>>> ,name = #class "_mutex", \
>>>
>>> and it 'works', but shees!
>> The name string itself may be duplicated for multiple instances of
>> DEFINE_WW_MUTEX(). Do you want to keep DEFINE_WW_MUTEX() or just use
>> ww_mutex_init() for all?
> So linkers can merge literals, but no guarantee. But yeah, lets just
> kill the thing, less tricky macro crud to worry about.
>
Good, just to confirm the right way to move forward.
Cheers,
Longman
Powered by blists - more mailing lists