* Peter Zijlstra <pet...@infradead.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 01, 2013 at 12:12:11AM -0400, Jason Baron wrote:
> >
> > Yes, I agree that 'higher' level locking may be required for some callers of
> > the newly proposed interface. However, I do think that the
> > static_key_slow_set_true()/false() provides a nice abstraction for some
> > callers, while addressing test/set() races, by making that sequence atomic.
> >
> > I view the proposed inteface of set_true()/set_false() as somewhat analogous
> > to an atomic_set() call. In the same way, the current
> > static_key_slow_inc()/dec() are analogous to atomic_inc()/dec().
> >
> > It arguably makes the code code a bit more readable, transforming sequences
> > such as:
> >
> > if (!static_key_enabled(&control_var))
> > static_key_slow_inc(&control_var);
> >
> > into:
> >
> > static_key_slow_set_true(&control_var);
> >
> >
> > I see at least 3 users of static_keys in the tree which I think would
> > benefit from this transformation. The 2 attached with this series, and the
> > usage in kernel/tracepoint.c.
>
> I tend to agree with Jason here. I also dont' think the scheduler needs
> this; but the new API is more usable for binary switches as opposed to
> the refcount thing.
Ok - no objections then from me either.
Thanks,
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
