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.. ;-)
--
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/
