Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 15 Feb 2022 10:32:20 +0100 | From | Petr Mladek <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH printk v1 01/13] printk: rename cpulock functions |
| |
On Fri 2022-02-11 22:04:48, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 03:57:27PM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 15:48:08 +0106 > > John Ogness <john.ogness@linutronix.de> wrote: > > > > > It is because (as in the example above), taking this "lock" does not > > > provide synchronization to data. It is only synchronizing between > > > CPUs. It was Steven's suggestion to call the thing a cpu_sync object and > > > nobody in the RT Track seemed to disagree. > > > > I love causing trouble ;-) > > > > Actually, it wasn't just my suggestion. IIRC, I believe Peter Zijlstra was > > against calling it a lock (Peter, you can use lore to see the context here). > > All I remember is that it was in a room and I was late, I can't even > remember what City we were all in at the time. Was this Lisbon? > > Anyway, as Steve said, it isn't really a strict exclusion thing, it only > avoids the most egregious inter-cpu interleaving. I'm down with > goldi-locks, something has to have that name :-)
You troublemakers :-)
OK, I know, I am the troublemaker here.
Best Regards, Petr
| |