On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 04:44:20PM -0400, Peter Hurley wrote:
> Greg,
> This patchset includes
> 'tty: Drop lock contention stat from ldsem trylocks'
> so no need to apply that on this series. Also, I noticed you
> kept the 'tty is NULL' removal on a different branch so I left
> my patch in this
On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 4:42 AM, Peter Hurley wrote:
> On Thu, 2013-03-14 at 00:25 -0700, Michel Lespinasse wrote:
>> Its not too late to run away from it and preserve your sanity (as well
>> as that of the next person working on the tty layer :)
>
> The long-term plan is to migrate it to lib so i
On Thu, 2013-03-14 at 00:25 -0700, Michel Lespinasse wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 6:12 PM, Peter Hurley
> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2013-03-13 at 04:36 -0700, Michel Lespinasse wrote:
> >> Have you considered building your ldlock based on lib/rwsem-spinlock.c
> >> instead ? i.e. having an internal s
On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 6:12 PM, Peter Hurley wrote:
> On Wed, 2013-03-13 at 04:36 -0700, Michel Lespinasse wrote:
>> Have you considered building your ldlock based on lib/rwsem-spinlock.c
>> instead ? i.e. having an internal spinlock to protect the ldisc
>> reference count and the reader and writ
On Wed, 2013-03-13 at 04:36 -0700, Michel Lespinasse wrote:
> Have you considered building your ldlock based on lib/rwsem-spinlock.c
> instead ? i.e. having an internal spinlock to protect the ldisc
> reference count and the reader and writer queues. This would seem much
> simpler get right. The do
On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 9:47 AM, Peter Hurley wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-03-11 at 19:28 -0700, Michel Lespinasse wrote:
>> Also why the write-priority requirement rather than reader-writer
>> fairness ? Is it to make it less likely to hit the writer timeouts ?
>
> Since tty i/o can be really [painfully
On Mon, 2013-03-11 at 19:28 -0700, Michel Lespinasse wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 1:44 PM, Peter Hurley
> wrote:
> > Greg,
> > This patchset includes
> > 'tty: Drop lock contention stat from ldsem trylocks'
> > so no need to apply that on this series. Also, I noticed you
> > kept the 'tty i
On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 1:44 PM, Peter Hurley wrote:
> Greg,
> This patchset includes
> 'tty: Drop lock contention stat from ldsem trylocks'
> so no need to apply that on this series. Also, I noticed you
> kept the 'tty is NULL' removal on a different branch so I left
> my patch in this series t
Greg,
This patchset includes
'tty: Drop lock contention stat from ldsem trylocks'
so no need to apply that on this series. Also, I noticed you
kept the 'tty is NULL' removal on a different branch so I left
my patch in this series that removes it.
This series applies cleanly to tty-next.
v5 chan
9 matches
Mail list logo
