* Waiman Long <waiman.l...@hp.com> wrote:
> > I think Waiman's patches (even the later ones) made the queued rwlocks
> > be a side-by-side implementation with the old rwlocks, and I think
> > that was just being unnecessarily careful. It might be useful for
> > testing to have a config option to switch between the two, but we
> > might as well go all the way.
>
> It is not actually a side-by-side implementation. A user can choose
> either regular rwlock or the queue one, but never both by setting a
> configuration parameter. However, I now think that maybe we should do it
> the lockref way by pre-determining it on a per-architecture level
> without user visible configuration option.
Well, as I pointed it out to you during review, such a Kconfig driven
locking API choice is a no-go!
What I suggested instead: there's absolutely no problem with providing a
better rwlock_t implementation, backed with numbers and all that.
Thanks,
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
