From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: William Allen Simpson <william.allen.simpson@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH resent] Documentation: rw_lock lessons learned
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 12:08:08 -0500
Message-ID: <4AFAEF78.4080807@gmail.com>
References: <4AF9C540.5090403@gmail.com> <20091110180646.2e5859a8@nehalam>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
	Linux Kernel Developers <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>
To: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@vyatta.com>
Return-path: <netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mail-bw0-f227.google.com ([209.85.218.227]:42627 "EHLO
	mail-bw0-f227.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1757486AbZKKRIK (ORCPT
	<rfc822;netdev@vger.kernel.org>); Wed, 11 Nov 2009 12:08:10 -0500
In-Reply-To: <20091110180646.2e5859a8@nehalam>
Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <netdev.vger.kernel.org>

Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> I would rather see the text in Documentation/spinlocks give an explaination
> as to why reader/writer locks are normally not desirable. 
> 
> The whole document needs work to make it a developer document, rather than
> a historical mail thread..  A good document says what should be done today,
> and does not have old junk or ask the reader to overly new context
> on old information.
> 
You wish me to merge our patches?

Or this is a second patch in a proposed series?