.. but I don't think we have any real users who use them for recursion,
so the only "recursion" right now is through interrupts that use this
(At least that was true a long time time ago, maybe we've added truly
recursive users since)
>> Actually, giving this som emore thought, I really suspect that the
>> simplest solution is to alloc a separate "fair_read_lock()", and paths
>> that need to care about fairness (and know they don't have the irq
>> can use that, slowly porting users over one by one...
>Do you mean have a separate lock type, or have two different read_lock
>operations on the current type?
That depends on whether it is even sanely implementable to share the
same lock. It may not be.
share the lock type and to mix operations (ie an interrupt - or
recursive user - could just use the non-fair version, while others could
use the fair version on the same lock). However, I have this nagging
suspicion that it might be a total nightmare to implement efficiently in
I've not looked at it. Any ideas?
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to email@example.com
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/