On Fri, May 11, 2007 at 11:08:24AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Fri, 11 May 2007 19:12:16 +0200 > Peter Zijlstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > (now with reply-all) > > > > On Fri, 2007-05-11 at 09:17 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > On Fri, 11 May 2007 15:15:43 +0200 Peter Zijlstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > - down_write(¤t->mm->mmap_sem); > > > > + rw_mutex_write_lock(¤t->mm->mmap_lock); > > > > > > y'know, this is such an important lock and people have had such problems > > > with it and so many different schemes and ideas have popped up that I'm > > > kinda thinking that we should wrap it: > > > > > > write_lock_mm(struct mm_struct *mm); > > > write_unlock_mm(struct mm_struct *mm); > > > read_lock_mm(struct mm_struct *mm); > > > read_unlock_mm(struct mm_struct *mm); > > > > > > so that further experimentations become easier? > > > > Sure, can do; it'd require a few more functions than these, but its not > > too many. However, what is the best way to go about such massive rename > > actions? Just push them through quickly, and make everybody cope? > > Well, if we _do_ decide to do this (is anyone howling?) then we can do > > static inline void write_lock_mm(struct mm_struct *mm) > { > down_write(&mm->mmap_sem); > }
I think that would be fine to do. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/