Re: [patch 8/9] Documentation: Fix invalid rcu assumptions

[Thomas Gleixner]

On Fri, 11 Dec 2009, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 08:07:45AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > On Fri, 11 Dec 2009, David Howells wrote:
> > 
> > > Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > -197          * we use RCU protection here
> > > > +196          * caller must be holding the RCU readlocke
> > > 
> > > You mean "readlock" I suspect.
> > 
> > Or maybe he's talking about ye olde readlocke, used widely for OS research 
> > throughout the middle ages. You still find that spelling in some really 
> > old CS literature.
> 
> Interestingly enough, they also tended to split it into two words and
> capitalize it, as can be seen by searching for "Read Locke" at
> 
> 	http://faculty.uml.edu/enelson/modern07.htm

The good thing about "Read Locke" is: there is no "Write Locke".

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