From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756199Ab0EQXNl (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 May 2010 19:13:41 -0400 Received: from smtp-out.google.com ([74.125.121.35]:39186 "EHLO smtp-out.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753113Ab0EQXNj (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 May 2010 19:13:39 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=beta; d=google.com; c=nofws; q=dns; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references: mime-version:content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent:x-system-of-record; b=EcPup6DS/N52GBI5dBdw5oEtFvm5af0X9xJwqyskaQRIbDsLp65idI3cvBa07Jimn yNjoWY9xf6fw7ukPP+8dA== Date: Mon, 17 May 2010 16:13:31 -0700 From: Michel Lespinasse To: Linus Torvalds Cc: David Howells , Ingo Molnar , Thomas Gleixner , LKML , Andrew Morton , Mike Waychison , Suleiman Souhlal , Ying Han Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/10] generic rwsem: implement down_read_critical() / up_read_critical() Message-ID: <20100517231331.GA30847@google.com> References: <1274135154-24082-1-git-send-email-walken@google.com> <1274135154-24082-8-git-send-email-walken@google.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17+20080114 (2008-01-14) X-System-Of-Record: true Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 03:44:24PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > You didn't update the comment for the new name here... > > > - when the rwsem is write owned, down_read_unfair() callers get queued in > > front of threads trying to acquire the rwsem by other means. > > .. or here. In this case, it really is more about "unfairness", but I'm > not convinced it should be so in the naming anyway, even if internally it > might be __down_read_unfair. "critical" I think covers both. Gah! Sorry for missing the comment updates. I agree with you on the naming, I just didn't remember about the comment. Will send identical patch with the correct comment as reply to this. > Anyway, the series looks mostly acceptable to me in this form. I think it > conceptually works out, and I think that the non-preemption guarantee > should mean that starvation of writers is not likely an issue. However, > I'd definitely like some second opinions on it. I'm not going to apply > this series without acks from people. So you should try to convince DavidH > too that this actually really does matter and makes sense. I'll see what I can do here. Thanks ! -- Michel "Walken" Lespinasse A program is never fully debugged until the last user dies.