Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Fri, 8 Nov 2013 15:19:31 -0800 | From | "Paul E. McKenney" <> | Subject | Re: [RFC 0/8] Move locking primitives into kernel/locking/ |
| |
On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 08:37:48AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 06:29:21AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 05, 2013 at 01:10:44PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > > > During Kernel Summit Dave mentioned that there wasn't a clear maintainer for > > > locking bits. > > > > > > To remedy this Ingo suggested gathering all the various locking primitives and > > > lockdep into a single place: kernel/locking/. > > > > > > I would further like to propose a MAINTAINERS entry like: > > > > > > LOCKING > > > M: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com> > > > M: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> > > > M: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> > > > M: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> > > > M: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> > > > T: git git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tip/tip.git locking/core > > > S: Maintained > > > F: kernel/locking/ > > > > > > Because for most 'fun' locking discussions we usually end up with at least > > > those people anyway :-) > > > > > > Comments? > > > > OK, I am in. > > > > How are we organizing this? I could imagine divvying up the various > > types of locks, having a minimum number of reviews or acks coupled > > with a maximum review time, or just requiring the full set of reviews > > and acks given the criticality of locking code. Other approaches? > > I would suggest something like an ack/review of at least 3/5, no hard > deadline, because as you say, its better to get locking right :-)
Works for me!
Thanx, Paul
|  |