On Fri, 15 Apr 2005, Sven Dietrich wrote:
> > > >
> > > /** A fuqueue, a prioritized wait queue usable from
> > kernel space. */
> > > struct fuqueue {
> > > spinlock_t lock;
> > > struct plist wlist;
> > > struct fuqueue_ops *ops;
> > > };
> > >
> >
> > Would the above spinlock_t be a raw_spinlock_t? This goes
> > back to my first question. I'm not sure how familiar you are
> > with Ingo's work, but he has turned all spinlocks into
> > mutexes, and when you really need an original spinlock, you
> > declare it with raw_spinlock_t.
> >
>
> This one probably should be a raw_spinlock.
> This lock is only held to protect access to the queues.
> Since the queues are already priority ordered, there is
> little benefit to ordering -the order of insertion-
> in case of contention on a queue, compared with the complexity.
>
Surprisingly, this makes perfect sense to me! I'm not going to comment on
this code until I actually get to see the whole package. I don't know how
much Inaky has used Ingo's work, but I'd figured it should be a
raw_spinlock.
> Just what you want to say to a guy who says he is tired ;)
>
This is nothing, I'm currently trying to test stuff from another thread
dealing with qdiscs in the net code. %-}
-- Steve
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
