On 2020-03-25 09:39:19 [-0700], Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > --- a/Documentation/locking/locktypes.rst > > > +++ b/Documentation/locking/locktypes.rst > > … > > > +rw_semaphore > > > +============ > > > + > > > +rw_semaphore is a multiple readers and single writer lock mechanism. > > > + > > > +On non-PREEMPT_RT kernels the implementation is fair, thus preventing > > > +writer starvation. > > > + > > > +rw_semaphore complies by default with the strict owner semantics, but > > > there > > > +exist special-purpose interfaces that allow non-owner release for > > > readers. > > > +These work independent of the kernel configuration. > > > > This reads funny, could be my English. "This works independent …" maybe? > > The "These" refers to "interfaces", which is plural, so "These" rather > than "This". But yes, it is a bit awkward, because you have to skip > back past "readers", "release", and "non-owner" to find the implied > subject of that last sentence. > > So how about this instead, making the implied subject explicit? > > rw_semaphore complies by default with the strict owner semantics, but there > exist special-purpose interfaces that allow non-owner release for readers. > These interfaces work independent of the kernel configuration.
Yes, perfect. Thank you. > Thanx, Paul Sebastian
