On 03/02, Lai Jiangshan wrote: > > On 02/03/13 02:28, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > Lai, I didn't read this discussion except the code posted by Michel. > > I'll try to read this patch carefully later, but I'd like to ask > > a couple of questions. > > > > This version looks more complex than Michel's, why? Just curious, I > > am trying to understand what I missed. See > > http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=136196350213593 > > Michel changed my old draft version a little, his version is good enough for me. Yes, I see. But imho Michel suggested the valuable cleanup, the code becomes even more simple with the same perfomance. Your v2 looks almost correct to me, but I still think it makes sense to incorporate the simplification from Michel. > My new version tries to add a little better nestable support with only > adding single __this_cpu_op() in _read_[un]lock(). How? Afaics with or without FALLBACK_BASE you need _reed + _inc/dec in _read_lock/unlock. Oleg. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
