[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87o8ac1cv8.ffs@tglx>
Date: Thu, 05 Aug 2021 11:04:27 +0200
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Waiman Long <llong@...hat.com>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>
Subject: Re: [patch 15/63] locking: Add base code for RT rw_semaphore and
rwlock
On Wed, Aug 04 2021 at 15:37, Waiman Long wrote:
> On 7/30/21 9:50 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> +static int __sched rwbase_write_lock(struct rwbase_rt *rwb,
>> + unsigned int state)
>> +{
>> + struct rt_mutex_base *rtm = &rwb->rtmutex;
>> + unsigned long flags;
>> +
>> + /* Take the rtmutex as a first step */
>> + if (rwbase_rtmutex_lock_state(rtm, state))
>
> This function is used here before it was defined in next patch (patch 16).
Correct and there are more I think. But that's a hen and egg
problem:
The base code cannot be compiled without the actual implementation for
either rw_semaphore or rw_lock substitutions. The implementations cannot
be compiled without the base code.
So I chose to split it up so the base logic is separate.
Thanks,
tglx
Powered by blists - more mailing lists