From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
To: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@canonical.com>,
Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@gmail.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] locking: ww_mutex: Allow to use rt_mutex instead of mutex for the baselock
Date: Fri, 06 Mar 2015 13:36:06 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <54F99F36.4030405@linutronix.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <54F99A9B.1050503@canonical.com>
On 03/06/2015 01:16 PM, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
>> 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).
Lets see what Mike says. I currently don't see any reason for people to
switch between both implementations except for testing. And if it
remains hidden then nobody changing code ww_mutex tests against
rt_mutex. That way there is hope :)
Sebastian
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-03-06 12:36 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-02-27 16:57 rt_mutex based ww_mutex implementation Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2015-02-27 16:57 ` [PATCH 1/3] locking: ww_mutex: add one level of indirection for access of the lock Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2015-02-27 18:20 ` Maarten Lankhorst
2015-02-27 18:57 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2015-02-27 16:57 ` [PATCH 2/3] locking: ww_mutex: Allow to use rt_mutex instead of mutex for the baselock Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2015-03-02 3:20 ` Mike Galbraith
2015-03-02 8:46 ` Maarten Lankhorst
2015-03-02 12:50 ` Mike Galbraith
2015-03-06 12:14 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2015-03-06 12:16 ` Maarten Lankhorst
2015-03-06 12:36 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior [this message]
2015-03-06 17:50 ` Mike Galbraith
2015-03-09 10:00 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2015-03-09 10:51 ` Mike Galbraith
2015-03-09 11:07 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2015-03-09 11:29 ` Mike Galbraith
2015-03-09 13:21 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2015-03-09 22:27 ` Paul E. McKenney
2015-03-10 12:30 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-03-10 12:37 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-03-10 12:39 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-03-10 14:10 ` Maarten Lankhorst
2015-03-10 15:28 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-03-10 18:21 ` Maarten Lankhorst
2015-03-10 12:43 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-03-10 12:46 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-02-27 16:57 ` [PATCH 3/3] locking: rtmutex: set state back to running on error Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2015-02-28 10:00 ` [tip:locking/urgent] locking/rtmutex: Set " tip-bot for Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2015-03-01 5:35 ` [PATCH 3/3] locking: rtmutex: set " Mike Galbraith
2015-03-01 8:48 ` [tip:locking/urgent] locking/rtmutex: Set " tip-bot for Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=54F99F36.4030405@linutronix.de \
--to=bigeasy@linutronix.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=maarten.lankhorst@canonical.com \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=umgwanakikbuti@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.