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 <[email protected]>
> > > M: Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]>
> > > M: Oleg Nesterov <[email protected]>
> > > M: "Paul E. McKenney" <[email protected]>
> > > M: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]>
> > > 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
--
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/
