Re: [PATCH 2/3] locking: ww_mutex: Allow to use rt_mutex instead of mutex for the baselock

[Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@canonical.com>]

On 06-03-15 13:14, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 03/02/2015 09:46 AM, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
>> Hey,
>>
>> Op 02-03-15 om 04:20 schreef Mike Galbraith:
>>> On Fri, 2015-02-27 at 17:57 +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
>>>> This patch makes it possible to replace the base mutex by a rt_mutex. In
>>>> general one would not do this.
>>> I would argue that the thing should be born as a full fledged primitive,
>>> not a config option, as an rt_ww_mutex is the ww extension of rt_mutex.
>>> We have to do the global substitution in -rt, but why should it not
>>> exist in its own right in mainline? 
>> Well I haven't seen any users that specifically need a rt_ww_mutex, but flipping the switch on ww_mutex could be useful for testing. :)
> 
> Okay so what I the point made here? It is only about the config option,
> right? What are the preferences here:
> [ ] yes, the way it is now
Is my personal preference, but I'm not a locking expert(TM).

> [ ] yes, but somewhere else, please enter where you would like to see it
> 
> [ ] yes, but keep it hidden (not selectable)
> 
> [ ] what?
> 
>> ~Maarten
> 
> 
> Sebastian
>