From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754862AbbCFMQj (ORCPT ); Fri, 6 Mar 2015 07:16:39 -0500 Received: from mblankhorst.nl ([141.105.120.124]:40341 "EHLO mblankhorst.nl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750947AbbCFMQe (ORCPT ); Fri, 6 Mar 2015 07:16:34 -0500 Message-ID: <54F99A9B.1050503@canonical.com> Date: Fri, 06 Mar 2015 13:16:27 +0100 From: Maarten Lankhorst User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior , Mike Galbraith CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Peter Zijlstra , Ingo Molnar Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] locking: ww_mutex: Allow to use rt_mutex instead of mutex for the baselock References: <1425056229-22326-1-git-send-email-bigeasy@linutronix.de> <1425056229-22326-3-git-send-email-bigeasy@linutronix.de> <1425266436.7429.8.camel@gmail.com> <54F4237B.40903@canonical.com> <54F99A38.1070806@linutronix.de> In-Reply-To: <54F99A38.1070806@linutronix.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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 >