From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
Cc: Chris Wedgwood <cw@f00f.org>, Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Peter Chubb <peterc@gelato.unsw.edu.au>,
Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com>,
Darren Williams <dsw@gelato.unsw.edu.au>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
Ia64 Linux <linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
William Lee Irwin III <wli@holomorphy.com>,
Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@sgi.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] 'spinlock/rwlock fixes' V3 [1/1]
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 16:28:36 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20050120162836.GA14726@elte.hu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0501200812300.8178@ppc970.osdl.org>
* Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> wrote:
> And it probably should be in <asm-i386/rwlock.h>, since that is where
> the actual implementation is, and <asm-i386/spinlock.h> doesn't really
> have any clue what the rules are, and shouldn't act like it has.
historically spinlock.h had the full implementation of both spinlock
variants: spinlocks and rwlocks. (hey, you implemented it first and put
it there! :-) Then came Ben's rwsems that wanted pieces of rw-spinlocks,
so rwlock.h was created with the shared bits.
one thing i was thinking about was to move most but the assembly to
asm-generic/spinlock.h. Almost every architecture shares the spinlock
type definitions and shares most of the non-assembly functions.
Ingo
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
Cc: Chris Wedgwood <cw@f00f.org>, Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Peter Chubb <peterc@gelato.unsw.edu.au>,
Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com>,
Darren Williams <dsw@gelato.unsw.edu.au>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
Ia64 Linux <linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
William Lee Irwin III <wli@holomorphy.com>,
Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@sgi.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] 'spinlock/rwlock fixes' V3 [1/1]
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 17:28:36 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20050120162836.GA14726@elte.hu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0501200812300.8178@ppc970.osdl.org>
* Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> wrote:
> And it probably should be in <asm-i386/rwlock.h>, since that is where
> the actual implementation is, and <asm-i386/spinlock.h> doesn't really
> have any clue what the rules are, and shouldn't act like it has.
historically spinlock.h had the full implementation of both spinlock
variants: spinlocks and rwlocks. (hey, you implemented it first and put
it there! :-) Then came Ben's rwsems that wanted pieces of rw-spinlocks,
so rwlock.h was created with the shared bits.
one thing i was thinking about was to move most but the assembly to
asm-generic/spinlock.h. Almost every architecture shares the spinlock
type definitions and shares most of the non-assembly functions.
Ingo
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2005-01-20 16:28 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 87+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2005-01-17 5:50 Horrible regression with -CURRENT from "Don't busy-lock-loop in preemptable spinlocks" patch Chris Wedgwood
2005-01-17 7:09 ` Andrew Morton
2005-01-17 7:33 ` Chris Wedgwood
2005-01-17 7:50 ` Paul Mackerras
2005-01-17 8:00 ` Chris Wedgwood
2005-01-17 14:33 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-01-18 1:47 ` Darren Williams
2005-01-18 1:47 ` Darren Williams
2005-01-18 4:28 ` Darren Williams
2005-01-18 4:28 ` Darren Williams
2005-01-18 7:08 ` Chris Wedgwood
2005-01-18 7:08 ` Chris Wedgwood
2005-01-19 0:14 ` Peter Chubb
2005-01-19 0:14 ` Peter Chubb
2005-01-19 8:04 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-01-19 8:04 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-01-19 9:18 ` Peter Chubb
2005-01-19 9:18 ` Peter Chubb
2005-01-19 9:20 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-01-19 9:20 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-01-19 21:43 ` Paul Mackerras
2005-01-19 21:43 ` Paul Mackerras
2005-01-20 2:34 ` [PATCH RFC] 'spinlock/rwlock fixes' V3 [1/1] Chris Wedgwood
2005-01-20 2:34 ` Chris Wedgwood
2005-01-20 3:01 ` Andrew Morton
2005-01-20 3:01 ` Andrew Morton
2005-01-20 3:18 ` Chris Wedgwood
2005-01-20 3:18 ` Chris Wedgwood
2005-01-20 3:33 ` Andrew Morton
2005-01-20 3:33 ` Andrew Morton
2005-01-20 8:59 ` Peter Chubb
2005-01-20 8:59 ` Peter Chubb
2005-01-20 13:04 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 13:04 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 15:51 ` Linus Torvalds
2005-01-20 15:51 ` Linus Torvalds
2005-01-20 16:08 ` [patch 1/3] spinlock fix #1, *_can_lock() primitives Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 16:08 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 16:11 ` [patch 2/3] spinlock fix #2: generalize [spin|rw]lock yielding Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 16:11 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 16:12 ` [patch 3/3] spinlock fix #3: type-checking spinlock primitives, x86 Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 16:12 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 16:14 ` [patch] stricter type-checking rwlock " Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 16:14 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 16:16 ` [patch] minor spinlock cleanups Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 16:16 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 16:31 ` [patch 1/3] spinlock fix #1, *_can_lock() primitives Linus Torvalds
2005-01-20 16:31 ` Linus Torvalds
2005-01-20 16:40 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 16:40 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 17:48 ` Linus Torvalds
2005-01-20 17:48 ` Linus Torvalds
2005-01-20 17:53 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 17:53 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 18:22 ` [patch, BK-curr] nonintrusive spin-polling loop in kernel/spinlock.c Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 18:22 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 18:25 ` [patch, BK-curr] rename 'lock' to 'slock' in asm-i386/spinlock.h Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 18:25 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 23:45 ` [patch, BK-curr] nonintrusive spin-polling loop in kernel/spinlock.c Linus Torvalds
2005-01-20 23:45 ` Linus Torvalds
2005-01-20 16:44 ` [patch 1/3] spinlock fix #1, *_can_lock() primitives Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 16:44 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 16:59 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 16:59 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 16:47 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 16:47 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 16:57 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 16:57 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 16:05 ` [PATCH RFC] 'spinlock/rwlock fixes' V3 [1/1] Linus Torvalds
2005-01-20 16:05 ` Linus Torvalds
2005-01-20 16:20 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 16:20 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 16:18 ` Linus Torvalds
2005-01-20 16:18 ` Linus Torvalds
2005-01-20 16:23 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 16:23 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 17:30 ` Linus Torvalds
2005-01-20 17:30 ` Linus Torvalds
2005-01-20 17:38 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 17:38 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 16:28 ` Ingo Molnar [this message]
2005-01-20 16:28 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 5:49 ` Horrible regression with -CURRENT from "Don't busy-lock-loop in preemptable spinlocks" patch Grant Grundler
2005-01-20 5:49 ` Grant Grundler
2005-01-17 7:38 ` [PATCH] __get_cpu_var should use __smp_processor_id() not smp_processor_id() Chris Wedgwood
2005-01-17 14:40 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-01-17 18:53 ` Chris Wedgwood
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20050120162836.GA14726@elte.hu \
--to=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=benh@kernel.crashing.org \
--cc=cw@f00f.org \
--cc=dsw@gelato.unsw.edu.au \
--cc=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=jbarnes@sgi.com \
--cc=linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=paulus@samba.org \
--cc=peterc@gelato.unsw.edu.au \
--cc=tony.luck@intel.com \
--cc=torvalds@osdl.org \
--cc=wli@holomorphy.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.