Re: [RFC 0/8] Move locking primitives into kernel/locking/

["Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>]

On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 08:37:48AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 06:29:21AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 05, 2013 at 01:10:44PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > Hi all,
> > > 
> > > During Kernel Summit Dave mentioned that there wasn't a clear maintainer for
> > > locking bits.
> > > 
> > > To remedy this Ingo suggested gathering all the various locking primitives and
> > > lockdep into a single place: kernel/locking/.
> > > 
> > > I would further like to propose a MAINTAINERS entry like:
> > > 
> > > LOCKING
> > > M:      Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>
> > > M:      Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
> > > M:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
> > > M:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > > M:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
> > > T:      git git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tip/tip.git locking/core
> > > S:      Maintained
> > > F:      kernel/locking/
> > > 
> > > Because for most 'fun' locking discussions we usually end up with at least
> > > those people anyway :-)
> > > 
> > > Comments?
> > 
> > OK, I am in.
> > 
> > How are we organizing this?  I could imagine divvying up the various
> > types of locks, having a minimum number of reviews or acks coupled
> > with a maximum review time, or just requiring the full set of reviews
> > and acks given the criticality of locking code.  Other approaches?
> 
> I would suggest something like an ack/review of at least 3/5, no hard
> deadline, because as you say, its better to get locking right :-)

Works for me!

							Thanx, Paul