Re: [PATCH] (0/8) replace brlock with RCU

• Next message: Stephen Hemminger: "Re: [PATCH] (2/8) Eliminate brlock for packet_type"
• Previous message: Alan Cox: "Re: Warning: dev (pts(136,0)) tty->count(5) != #fd's(4) in tty_open"
• In reply to: Stephen Hemminger: "[PATCH] (0/8) replace brlock with RCU"
• Next in thread: David S. Miller: "Re: [PATCH] (0/8) replace brlock with RCU"
• Reply: David S. Miller: "Re: [PATCH] (0/8) replace brlock with RCU"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

On 11 Mar 2003, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
>
> The following sequence of patches replaces the remaining use of brlock
> with RCU. Most of this is fairly straightforward. The unregister functions
> use synchronize_kernel(), perhaps there should be a special version to
> indicate sychronizing with network BH.
>
> Comments?

I'm not going to take this directly, but if it passes muster with David,
I'm happy. The fewer locking primitives we need, the better, and brlocks
have had enough problems that I wouldn't mind getting rid of them.

                Linus

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

• Next message: Stephen Hemminger: "Re: [PATCH] (2/8) Eliminate brlock for packet_type"
• Previous message: Alan Cox: "Re: Warning: dev (pts(136,0)) tty->count(5) != #fd's(4) in tty_open"
• In reply to: Stephen Hemminger: "[PATCH] (0/8) replace brlock with RCU"
• Next in thread: David S. Miller: "Re: [PATCH] (0/8) replace brlock with RCU"
• Reply: David S. Miller: "Re: [PATCH] (0/8) replace brlock with RCU"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Mar 15 2003 - 22:00:28 EST