> On 4 Mar 2015, at 16:46, Ben Pfaff <b...@nicira.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 04, 2015 at 12:06:42PM +0000, Daniele Di Proietto wrote: >> Factor out the counter lock from the cmap implementation. >> >> A writer-prioritizing counter-based R/W spinlock is introduced with this >> commit. The code is taken from the cmap implementation. It will be used >> also in subsequent commits. >> >> Signed-off-by: Daniele Di Proietto <diproiet...@vmware.com> > > I don't plan to review the whole series but new primitives always catch > my eye. > > I think that it would be more natural to call these seqlocks, since that > is what Linux calls the same synchronization primitive. >
That seems reasonable, I’ll change the name > Do you mean "inappropriate" here? Thread-local data ordinarily has only > a single reader and a single writer: > + * Another appropriate use case is to protect thread-local data from > + * reader/writer concurrent access: if the data is written only by a single > + * thread, external synchronization is unnecessary. By “Thread-local” here, I meant data that is written only by one thread and read by many, but it wasn’t clear enough. I’ll remove the comment > Acked-by: Ben Pfaff <b...@nicira.com> Thanks for the review! _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
