From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758537Ab3KHXTi (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Nov 2013 18:19:38 -0500 Received: from e38.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.159]:48374 "EHLO e38.co.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757958Ab3KHXTg (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Nov 2013 18:19:36 -0500 Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2013 15:19:31 -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: <20131108231931.GK18245@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Reply-To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com References: <20131105105244.666320103@infradead.org> <20131106142921.GJ18245@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20131108073748.GF19203@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20131108073748.GF19203@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-TM-AS-MML: disable X-Content-Scanned: Fidelis XPS MAILER x-cbid: 13110823-1344-0000-0000-0000031E91E2 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 08:37:48AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 06:29:21AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > 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? > > I would suggest something like an ack/review of at least 3/5, no hard > deadline, because as you say, its better to get locking right :-) Works for me! Thanx, Paul