On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 02:17:07PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote: > On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 04:49:00PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 10:17:32PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote: > > > > > +struct cross_lock { > > > + /* > > > + * When more than one acquisition of crosslocks are overlapped, > > > + * we do actual commit only when ref == 0. > > > + */ > > > + atomic_t ref; > > > > That comment doesn't seem right, should that be: ref != 0 ? > > Also; would it not be much clearer to call this: nr_blocked, or waiters > > or something along those lines, because that is what it appears to be. Honestly, I forgot why I introduced the ref.. I will remove the ref next spin, and handle waiters in another way. Thank you, Byungchul -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx"> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>