On Wed, 10 Oct 2018 23:49:45 +0200 Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 2018-10-10 11:57:41 [+0200], Dmitry Vyukov wrote: > > Yes. Clark's patch looks good to me. Probably would be useful to add a > > comment as to why raw spinlock is used (otherwise somebody may > > refactor it back later). > > If you really insist, I could add something but this didn't happen so > far. git's changelog should provide enough information why to why it was > changed. Requiring code readers to look up changelogs in git is rather user-hostile. There are several reasons for using raw_*, so an explanatory comment at each site is called for. However it would be smarter to stop "using raw_* for several reasons". Instead, create a differently named variant for each such reason. ie, do /* * Nice comment goes here. It explains all the possible reasons why -rt * might use a raw_spin_lock when a spin_lock could otherwise be used. */ #define raw_spin_lock_for_rt raw_spinlock Then use raw_spin_lock_for_rt() at all such sites.
