From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: William Allen Simpson Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] Documentation: rw_lock lessons learned Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 12:01:16 -0500 Message-ID: <4B227ADC.5010908@gmail.com> References: <4AF9C540.5090403@gmail.com> <20091110180646.2e5859a8@nehalam> <4AFAEF78.4080807@gmail.com> <20091111093724.4f40a48d@nehalam> <4AFBEC44.9030409@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Stephen Hemminger , "Paul E. McKenney" , Linus Torvalds , Linux Kernel Developers , Linux Kernel Network Developers , Eric Dumazet , Stephen Clark , Stefan Richter To: Andrew Morton Return-path: Received: from qw-out-2122.google.com ([74.125.92.24]:19987 "EHLO qw-out-2122.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755838AbZLKRBO (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 Dec 2009 12:01:14 -0500 In-Reply-To: <4AFBEC44.9030409@gmail.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: William Allen Simpson wrote: > In recent weeks, two different network projects erroneously > strayed down the rw_lock path. Update the Documentation > based upon comments by Eric Dumazet and Paul E. McKenney in > those threads. > > Merged with editorial changes by Stephen Hemminger. > > Signed-off-by: William.Allen.Simpson@gmail.com > Acked-by: Paul E. McKenney > A month ago, I'd taken the final line "Ho humm.." of Linus' response to mean he wasn't interested. But at the local discussion yesterday, I'm told that's just a typical Linusism. The thread diverged into discussion of another document entirely. I'm not the person to update this document with any of the other information about global locks and tasklists and such. But surely somebody else could handle that in another patch. Anybody have answers/updates to Linus's concerns about "pretty old and bogus language"? Would folks be interested in the update? Does anybody know which list(s) would be better for discussion?