On 03/06/2015 06:50 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote: > On Fri, 2015-03-06 at 13:36 +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: >> On 03/06/2015 01:16 PM, Maarten Lankhorst wrote: >> >>>> Okay so what I the point made here? It is only about the config option, >>>> right? What are the preferences here: >>>> [ ] yes, the way it is now >>> Is my personal preference, but I'm not a locking expert(TM). >> >> Lets see what Mike says. I currently don't see any reason for people to >> switch between both implementations except for testing. And if it >> remains hidden then nobody changing code ww_mutex tests against >> rt_mutex. That way there is hope :) > > I don't see much point in an all or nothing config option, it'll just
it could be used for testing. My hope here is that if someone changes something within ww_mutex they test it ob both implementations. > sit idle. If folks can use them where they see fit, they might just do > that. We have mutex/rtmutex, so why not ww_mutex/rt_ww_mutex? Looks > like a natural extension to me. And why would they need it? I would assume that this would only confuse them. And if (for $reason) they need PI they will (most likely) need it for everything not just one lock. > > -Mike > Sebastian -- 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/
