Re: [RFC 0/8] Move locking primitives into kernel/locking/

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 06:29:21AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 05, 2013 at 01:10:44PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > Hi all,
> > 
> > During Kernel Summit Dave mentioned that there wasn't a clear maintainer for
> > locking bits.
> > 
> > To remedy this Ingo suggested gathering all the various locking primitives and
> > lockdep into a single place: kernel/locking/.
> > 
> > I would further like to propose a MAINTAINERS entry like:
> > 
> > LOCKING
> > M:      Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > M:      Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > M:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > M:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > M:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > T:      git git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tip/tip.git locking/core
> > S:      Maintained
> > F:      kernel/locking/
> > 
> > Because for most 'fun' locking discussions we usually end up with at least
> > those people anyway :-)
> > 
> > Comments?
> 
> OK, I am in.
> 
> How are we organizing this?  I could imagine divvying up the various
> types of locks, having a minimum number of reviews or acks coupled
> with a maximum review time, or just requiring the full set of reviews
> and acks given the criticality of locking code.  Other approaches?

I would suggest something like an ack/review of at least 3/5, no hard
deadline, because as you say, its better to get locking right :-)

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/