From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751489AbWGaJGy (ORCPT ); Mon, 31 Jul 2006 05:06:54 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751495AbWGaJGy (ORCPT ); Mon, 31 Jul 2006 05:06:54 -0400 Received: from nf-out-0910.google.com ([64.233.182.188]:3925 "EHLO nf-out-0910.google.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751489AbWGaJGx (ORCPT ); Mon, 31 Jul 2006 05:06:53 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version:content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent:sender; b=ECUStoPM59fnvt4XS3dceDHogG1VtREUzZn1mdSBliBagvcavK61vMVCqwP6czhFuMWtrJGt1xaPGBx1bhDi778MJtOoi4Xjx+m8wKbz2IzEfvS/rqLBXvpOheOEfHPejxjnC1TylHHYRccdCH+/vjQbvqsco2PlV1N086vALmE= Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2006 11:06:47 +0200 From: Frederik Deweerdt To: Masatake YAMATO Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, akpm@osdl.org, acme@mandriva.com, marcel@holtmann.org Subject: Re: [01/04 mm-patch, rfc] Add lightweight rwlock Message-ID: <20060801090647.GA920@slug> References: <20060728123246.GB311@slug> <20060728.221252.265353941.jet@gyve.org> <20060728161515.GA1227@slug> <20060731.160615.122996450.jet@gyve.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20060731.160615.122996450.jet@gyve.org> User-Agent: mutt-ng/devel-r804 (Linux) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Jul 31, 2006 at 04:06:15PM +0900, Masatake YAMATO wrote: Hi, > > The following set of patches adds a struct lw_rwlock (for lightweight > > rwlock) which contains a spin_lock_t and an atomic_t. It is defined > > in include/linux/lw_rwlock.h. > > I think the name, "lightweight" is too generic. Fair enough. > It implies just lw_rwlock is better than rwlock. The name may lead that people > use lw_rwlock rather than rwlock any place through there are places where > rwlock is better than lw_rwlock. So I looked for the name: > > sw_rwlock: seldom writing rwlock > wp_rwlock: write pricey rwlock write expensive, we_rwlock? I like your idea of stressing the fact that the protected data has to be seldom modified if you intend to use this kind of lock. > rp_rwlock: read prioritized rwlock > I'll re-submit the patch with a proper naming for the rc3-mm1. However, I'd like to get some feedback on the code itself: the current whatever_rwlock code won't be debuggable with lockdep, and I'm not sure there's not some more clever way to do it. Thanks, Frederik