On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 09:41:08AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Mon, 2009-04-27 at 16:32 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > > On Mon, 27 Apr 2009, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > > > > I left the commentary about "readers" and "writers", because in many > > > ways it's correct, and what the code actually does is very much to > > > emulate a reader-writer lock. I put quotes around the uses in the > > > comments to high-light that it largely _acts_ as a reader-writer lock. > > > > Btw, I think it was Paul who pointed out that technically it's probably > > better to call them "local" and "global" lockers instead of "readers" and > > "writers". > > exclusive vs non-exclusive is what the literature would call them in > most cases I think. I would argue that the non-exclusive category includes both reader-writer locking and local-global locking. That said, we have an unusual variant of local-global in this case, as the global processing acquires only one of the locks at a time. Thanx, Paul -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netfilter-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
