Re: [RFC 0/8] Move locking primitives into kernel/locking/

2013-11-08 Thread Paul E. McKenney
On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 08:37:48AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 06:29:21AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 05, 2013 at 01:10:44PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > > > During Kernel Summit Dave mentioned that there wasn't a clear maintainer

Re: [RFC 0/8] Move locking primitives into kernel/locking/

2013-11-07 Thread Peter Zijlstra
On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 06:29:21AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Tue, Nov 05, 2013 at 01:10:44PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > During Kernel Summit Dave mentioned that there wasn't a clear maintainer for > > locking bits. > > > > To remedy this Ingo suggested gathering al

Re: [RFC 0/8] Move locking primitives into kernel/locking/

2013-11-06 Thread Paul E. McKenney
On Tue, Nov 05, 2013 at 01:10:44PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > Hi all, > > During Kernel Summit Dave mentioned that there wasn't a clear maintainer for > locking bits. > > To remedy this Ingo suggested gathering all the various locking primitives and > lockdep into a single place: kernel/locki

Re: [RFC 0/8] Move locking primitives into kernel/locking/

2013-11-05 Thread Michel Lespinasse
On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 4:10 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > Hi all, > > During Kernel Summit Dave mentioned that there wasn't a clear maintainer for > locking bits. > > To remedy this Ingo suggested gathering all the various locking primitives and > lockdep into a single place: kernel/locking/. I qui

Re: [RFC 0/8] Move locking primitives into kernel/locking/

2013-11-05 Thread Steven Rostedt
On Tue, 5 Nov 2013 14:26:09 +0100 Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Steven Rostedt wrote: > > Also, 'kernel lock' brings me back memories of the 'big kernel lock' - > while 'kernel locks' brings verb/noun ambiguity and visuals of > 'kernel locks up'. Of course "locking" is only a verb, and we get "k

Re: [RFC 0/8] Move locking primitives into kernel/locking/

2013-11-05 Thread Steven Rostedt
On Tue, 05 Nov 2013 14:21:38 +0100 Maarten Lankhorst wrote: > Congratulations! You're our early bikeshed winner for today. Please pick your > favorite color at http://bikeshed.com Has nothing to do with bikesheds, but more to do with bagel shops! -- Steve -- To unsubscribe from this list: sen

Re: [RFC 0/8] Move locking primitives into kernel/locking/

2013-11-05 Thread Ingo Molnar
* Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Tue, 05 Nov 2013 13:10:44 +0100 > Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > During Kernel Summit Dave mentioned that there wasn't a clear maintainer for > > locking bits. > > > > To remedy this Ingo suggested gathering all the various locking primitives > > an

Re: [RFC 0/8] Move locking primitives into kernel/locking/

2013-11-05 Thread Maarten Lankhorst
op 05-11-13 14:18, Steven Rostedt schreef: > On Tue, 05 Nov 2013 13:10:44 +0100 > Peter Zijlstra wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> During Kernel Summit Dave mentioned that there wasn't a clear maintainer for >> locking bits. >> >> To remedy this Ingo suggested gathering all the various locking primitives

Re: [RFC 0/8] Move locking primitives into kernel/locking/

2013-11-05 Thread Steven Rostedt
On Tue, 05 Nov 2013 13:10:44 +0100 Peter Zijlstra wrote: > Hi all, > > During Kernel Summit Dave mentioned that there wasn't a clear maintainer for > locking bits. > > To remedy this Ingo suggested gathering all the various locking primitives and > lockdep into a single place: kernel/locking/.

[RFC 0/8] Move locking primitives into kernel/locking/

2013-11-05 Thread Peter Zijlstra
Hi all, During Kernel Summit Dave mentioned that there wasn't a clear maintainer for locking bits. To remedy this Ingo suggested gathering all the various locking primitives and lockdep into a single place: kernel/locking/. I would further like to propose a MAINTAINERS entry like: LOCKING M: