Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1590040
| From | Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@lge.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH v5 06/13] lockdep: Implement crossrelease feature |
| Date | 2017-03-01 07:50 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <tg6fg-7wF-19@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | <t0YjD-4z4-5@gated-at.bofh.it> <t0Ytl-4D1-41@gated-at.bofh.it> <tfSlY-6te-25@gated-at.bofh.it> <tg4Q9-6yN-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
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
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Re: [PATCH v5 06/13] lockdep: Implement crossrelease feature Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2017-02-28 17:00 +0100
Re: [PATCH v5 06/13] lockdep: Implement crossrelease feature Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@lge.com> - 2017-03-01 06:20 +0100
Re: [PATCH v5 06/13] lockdep: Implement crossrelease feature Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@lge.com> - 2017-03-01 07:50 +0100
Re: [PATCH v5 06/13] lockdep: Implement crossrelease feature Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@lge.com> - 2017-03-02 04:00 +0100
csiph-web