Re: [PATCH 2/3] locking: ww_mutex: Allow to use rt_mutex instead of mutex for the baselock

[Sebastian Andrzej Siewior]

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 majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/