From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Peter Zijlstra Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] mutex: add support for reservation style locks, v2 Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2013 12:56:14 +0200 Message-ID: <1364900174.18374.19.camel@laptop> References: <20130228102452.15191.22673.stgit@patser> <20130228102502.15191.14146.stgit@patser> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20130228102502.15191.14146.stgit@patser> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Maarten Lankhorst Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch, x86@kernel.org, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, linaro-mm-sig@lists.linaro.org, robclark@gmail.com, tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@elte.hu, linux-media@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-arch.vger.kernel.org On Thu, 2013-02-28 at 11:25 +0100, Maarten Lankhorst wrote: > +mutex_reserve_lock_slow and mutex_reserve_lock_intr_slow: > + Similar to mutex_reserve_lock, except it won't backoff with > -EAGAIN. > + This is useful when mutex_reserve_lock failed with -EAGAIN, and you > + unreserved all reservation_locks so no deadlock can occur. > + I don't particularly like these function names, with lock implementations the _slow post-fix is typically used for slow path implementations, not API type interfaces. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from 173-166-109-252-newengland.hfc.comcastbusiness.net ([173.166.109.252]:40634 "EHLO bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1760798Ab3DBK42 (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Apr 2013 06:56:28 -0400 Received: from dhcp-089-099-019-018.chello.nl ([89.99.19.18] helo=dyad.programming.kicks-ass.net) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtpsa (Exim 4.80.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1UMyt9-00051D-BO for linux-arch@vger.kernel.org; Tue, 02 Apr 2013 10:56:27 +0000 Message-ID: <1364900174.18374.19.camel@laptop> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] mutex: add support for reservation style locks, v2 From: Peter Zijlstra Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2013 12:56:14 +0200 In-Reply-To: <20130228102502.15191.14146.stgit@patser> References: <20130228102452.15191.22673.stgit@patser> <20130228102502.15191.14146.stgit@patser> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Maarten Lankhorst Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch, x86@kernel.org, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, linaro-mm-sig@lists.linaro.org, robclark@gmail.com, tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@elte.hu, linux-media@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <20130402105614.lgNBoqSB7DJMnnw9Ge9J6lcsVG4vqSz5APUJoRPQcuY@z> On Thu, 2013-02-28 at 11:25 +0100, Maarten Lankhorst wrote: > +mutex_reserve_lock_slow and mutex_reserve_lock_intr_slow: > + Similar to mutex_reserve_lock, except it won't backoff with > -EAGAIN. > + This is useful when mutex_reserve_lock failed with -EAGAIN, and you > + unreserved all reservation_locks so no deadlock can occur. > + I don't particularly like these function names, with lock implementations the _slow post-fix is typically used for slow path implementations, not API type interfaces.