* Tim Chen <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, 2014-05-05 at 19:26 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > * Tim Chen <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, 2014-05-05 at 01:46 -0700, tip-bot for Tim Chen wrote:
> > > > Commit-ID: 3cf2f34e1a3d4d5ff209d087925cf950e52f4805
> > > > Gitweb:
> > > > http://git.kernel.org/tip/3cf2f34e1a3d4d5ff209d087925cf950e52f4805
> > > > Author: Tim Chen <[email protected]>
> > > > AuthorDate: Fri, 2 May 2014 12:53:57 -0700
> > > > Committer: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>
> > > > CommitDate: Sun, 4 May 2014 20:34:26 +0200
> > > >
> > >
> > > Ingo,
> > >
> > > Can you pick up this version of the patch instead. I've updated the
> > > comments to reflect all cases for which the rwsem's count is less
> > > than WAITING_BIAS, as Peter has pointed out.
> >
> > Please send a delta patch against the one I applied - and also the
> > state diagram suggestion with Peter, once it's clear what form it
> > should take. I've yet to see a state diagram that was inferior to
> > equivalent textual description - is this case an exception to that?
> >
>
> Ingo,
>
> The delta patch is included below. Thinking a bit more,
> the state diagram approach is not necessarily less verbose
> because the state is a tuple (count, wait queue state).
> After enumerating the states, we may wind up with very similar
> to what I have.
Could we at least try with one diagram and see how it goes?
Thanks,
Ingo
--
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/
