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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).