On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 02:17:07PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 04:49:00PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 10:17:32PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> >
> > > +struct cross_lock {
> > > + /*
> > > + * When more than one acquisition of crosslocks are overlapped,
> > > + * we do actual commit only when ref == 0.
> > > + */
> > > + atomic_t ref;
> >
> > That comment doesn't seem right, should that be: ref != 0 ?
> > Also; would it not be much clearer to call this: nr_blocked, or waiters
> > or something along those lines, because that is what it appears to be.
Honestly, I forgot why I introduced the ref.. I will remove the ref next
spin, and handle waiters in another way.
Thank you,
Byungchul
