lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Oct]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/3] rcu: Create rcu_sync infrastructure
    On Fri, Oct 04, 2013 at 09:06:53PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
    > However, yes-yes-yes, I do think that we need the non-exclusive mode
    > too, at least for percpu_down_write_nonexclusive() which I think we
    > need as well.

    I just need to disagree with the write_nonexclusive() name; the
    construct I quite understand and could even agree with.

    How about something like:

    State excluding 'writers', but not itself:
    percpu_read_lock()
    percpu_read_unlock()

    State excluding readers, but not itself:
    percpu_non_read_lock();
    percpu_non_read_unlock();

    Full exclusive state:
    percpu_write_lock();
    percpu_write_unlock();

    At which point I start to have doubts about the percpu prefix.. ;-)


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2013-10-04 22:01    [W:4.211 / U:0.032 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site