From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Paul E. McKenney" Subject: Re: [PATCH resent] Documentation: rw_lock lessons learned Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 13:22:43 -0800 Message-ID: <20091110212243.GW8424@linux.vnet.ibm.com> References: <4AF9C540.5090403@gmail.com> Reply-To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Linux Kernel Developers , Linux Kernel Network Developers , Eric Dumazet To: William Allen Simpson Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4AF9C540.5090403@gmail.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 02:55:44PM -0500, William Allen Simpson wrote: > In recent weeks, two different network projects erroneously > strayed down the rw_lock path. Update the Documentation > based upon comments in those threads. > > Signed-off-by: William.Allen.Simpson@gmail.com > --- > Documentation/spinlocks.txt | 14 ++++++++++++++ > 1 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/Documentation/spinlocks.txt b/Documentation/spinlocks.txt > index 619699d..c112052 100644 > --- a/Documentation/spinlocks.txt > +++ b/Documentation/spinlocks.txt > @@ -233,4 +233,18 @@ indeed), while write-locks need to protect themselves against interrupts. > > Linus As you might guess, works for me!!! Acked-by: Paul E. McKenney > +---- > + > +The implications of spin_locks on memory are further described in: > + > + Documentation/memory-barriers.txt > + (5) LOCK operations. > + (6) UNLOCK operations. > + > +---- > + > +We are working hard to remove reader-writer spinlocks (rw_lock) from the > +network stack, so please don't add a new one. Instead, see: > + > + Documentation/RCU/rcu.txt > > -- > 1.6.3.3 > >