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

[Mike Galbraith]

On Mon, 2015-03-09 at 11:00 +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> 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.

Why do both mutex and rtmutex then exist one might ask? ;-)  No big deal
either way though, it's not like it becomes immutable once applied.

	-Mike

--
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/