Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 6 Dec 2009 10:10:43 -0800 (PST) | From | Linus Torvalds <> | Subject | Re: [patch 04/23] locking: Convert raw_spinlock to arch_spinlock |
| |
On Sun, 6 Dec 2009, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > Linus suggested to convert the raw_ to arch_ locks and cleanup the > name space instead of using an artifical name like core_spin, > atomic_spin or whatever > > No functional change.
Ok, I'm obviously biased, since I suggested this as a possible solution to the naming wars, but I have to say that I like this patch regardless of any of the other patches in the series. IOW, even without any issue of then re-using 'raw_spinlock' for the non-preemptable one, I like how this kind of change JustMakesSense(tm):
> --- linux-2.6-tip.orig/arch/alpha/include/asm/spinlock_types.h > +++ linux-2.6-tip/arch/alpha/include/asm/spinlock_types.h > @@ -7,7 +7,7 @@ > > typedef struct { > volatile unsigned int lock; > -} raw_spinlock_t; > +} arch_spinlock_t; > > #define __RAW_SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED { 0 } >
ie I just think that even just looking at the patch, this kind of change simply makes sense. The architectures declare their own per-architecture "arch_spinlock", and we can then do whatever we want at a higher level around that notion.
That said, it _is_
51 files changed, 164 insertions(+), 164 deletions(-)
but it seems to really be mainly the obvious arch header files and the tracing infrastructure, so while it's 51 files, the impact seems to be reasonably well-contained.
So I like it, but maybe the arch people hate it?
Linus
| |