From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: William Allen Simpson Subject: Re: Documentation: rw_lock lessons learned Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2009 11:15:42 -0500 Message-ID: <4AFD862E.6070105@gmail.com> References: <4AF9C540.5090403@gmail.com> <20091110180646.2e5859a8@nehalam> <4AFAEF78.4080807@gmail.com> <20091111093724.4f40a48d@nehalam> <4AFBEC44.9030409@gmail.com> <4AFC5E3F.7070609@earthlink.net> <20091112150029.1a26c641@nehalam> <4AFD1FF1.7080906@s5r6.in-berlin.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Stephen Hemminger , sclark46@earthlink.net, "Paul E. McKenney" , Linus Torvalds , Linux Kernel Developers , Linux Kernel Network Developers , Eric Dumazet To: Stefan Richter Return-path: In-Reply-To: <4AFD1FF1.7080906@s5r6.in-berlin.de> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org Stefan Richter wrote: > Stephen Hemminger wrote: >> On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 14:13:03 -0500 >> Stephen Clark wrote: >>> How up to date is this doc? >>> >>> http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/rusty/kernel-locking/index.html >>> >> Out of date. >> 1. Missing mutex's which have largely replaced semaphores. >> >> 2. Missing change to lock initialization in later kernels. >> >> 3. Missing description of lock dependency checker which should be in same guide. > > 4. The section on atomic reference counting should refer to . I'd also read that, and that's where I got some of my wrong thinking. But that does point to Documentation/spin_locks.txt, which I took to be authoritative (and followed). That's the reason spin_locks.txt should be updated, as others are having the same problems.... Anybody have answers/updates to Linus's concerns about "pretty old and bogus language"?