From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756819Ab3KFO3f (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Nov 2013 09:29:35 -0500 Received: from e31.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.149]:52768 "EHLO e31.co.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756610Ab3KFO3e (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Nov 2013 09:29:34 -0500 Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2013 06:29:21 -0800 From: "Paul E. McKenney" To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: torvalds@linux-foundation.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, oleg@redhat.com, dhowells@redhat.com, willy@linux.intel.com, tglx@linutronix.de, rostedt@goodmis.org, airlied@gmail.com, maarten.lankhorst@canonical.com, walken@google.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar Subject: Re: [RFC 0/8] Move locking primitives into kernel/locking/ Message-ID: <20131106142921.GJ18245@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Reply-To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com References: <20131105105244.666320103@infradead.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20131105105244.666320103@infradead.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-TM-AS-MML: No X-Content-Scanned: Fidelis XPS MAILER x-cbid: 13110614-8236-0000-0000-0000037BCADE Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Nov 05, 2013 at 01:10:44PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > Hi all, > > During Kernel Summit Dave mentioned that there wasn't a clear maintainer for > locking bits. > > To remedy this Ingo suggested gathering all the various locking primitives and > lockdep into a single place: kernel/locking/. > > I would further like to propose a MAINTAINERS entry like: > > LOCKING > M: Ingo Molnar > M: Peter Zijlstra > M: Oleg Nesterov > M: "Paul E. McKenney" > M: Linus Torvalds > T: git git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tip/tip.git locking/core > S: Maintained > F: kernel/locking/ > > Because for most 'fun' locking discussions we usually end up with at least > those people anyway :-) > > Comments? OK, I am in. How are we organizing this? I could imagine divvying up the various types of locks, having a minimum number of reviews or acks coupled with a maximum review time, or just requiring the full set of reviews and acks given the criticality of locking code. Other approaches? Thanx, Paul > --- > kernel/lglock.c | 89 > kernel/lockdep.c | 4257 ----------------------------------- > kernel/lockdep_internals.h | 170 - > kernel/lockdep_proc.c | 683 ----- > kernel/lockdep_states.h | 9 > kernel/mutex-debug.c | 110 > kernel/mutex-debug.h | 55 > kernel/mutex.c | 960 ------- > kernel/mutex.h | 48 > kernel/rtmutex-debug.c | 187 - > kernel/rtmutex-debug.h | 33 > kernel/rtmutex-tester.c | 420 --- > kernel/rtmutex.c | 1060 -------- > kernel/rtmutex.h | 26 > kernel/rtmutex_common.h | 126 - > kernel/rwsem.c | 157 - > kernel/semaphore.c | 263 -- > kernel/spinlock.c | 399 --- > lib/percpu-rwsem.c | 165 - > lib/rwsem-spinlock.c | 296 -- > lib/rwsem.c | 293 -- > lib/spinlock_debug.c | 302 -- > kernel/locking/Makefile | 25 > kernel/locking/lglock.c | 89 > kernel/locking/lockdep.c | 4257 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > kernel/locking/lockdep_internals.h | 170 + > kernel/locking/lockdep_proc.c | 683 +++++ > kernel/locking/lockdep_states.h | 9 > kernel/locking/mutex-debug.c | 110 > kernel/locking/mutex-debug.h | 55 > kernel/locking/mutex.c | 960 +++++++ > kernel/locking/mutex.h | 48 > kernel/locking/percpu-rwsem.c | 165 + > kernel/locking/rtmutex-debug.c | 187 + > kernel/locking/rtmutex-debug.h | 33 > kernel/locking/rtmutex-tester.c | 420 +++ > kernel/locking/rtmutex.c | 1060 ++++++++ > kernel/locking/rtmutex.h | 26 > kernel/locking/rtmutex_common.h | 126 + > kernel/locking/rwsem-spinlock.c | 296 ++ > kernel/locking/rwsem-xadd.c | 293 ++ > kernel/locking/rwsem.c | 157 + > kernel/locking/semaphore.c | 263 ++ > kernel/locking/spinlock.c | 399 +++ > kernel/locking/spinlock_debug.c | 302 ++ > kernel/Makefile | 22 > kernel/futex.c | 2 > lib/Makefile | 4 > 48 files changed, 10138 insertions(+), 10131 deletions(-) > > >