xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: RT and XFS

To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: RT and XFS
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2005 14:27:50 +0100
Cc: Bill Huey <bhuey@xxxxxxxx>, Esben Nielsen <simlo@xxxxxxxxxx>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Daniel Walker <dwalker@xxxxxxxxxx>, Dave Chinner <dgc@xxxxxxx>, greg@xxxxxxxxx, Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxx>, Steve Lord <lord@xxxxxxx>, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20050719123457.GC12368@elte.hu>
Mail-followup-to: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx>, Bill Huey <bhuey@xxxxxxxx>, Esben Nielsen <simlo@xxxxxxxxxx>, Daniel Walker <dwalker@xxxxxxxxxx>, Dave Chinner <dgc@xxxxxxx>, greg@xxxxxxxxx, Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxx>, Steve Lord <lord@xxxxxxx>, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
References: <20050714160835.GA19229@infradead.org> <Pine.OSF.4.05.10507171848440.14250-100000@da410.phys.au.dk> <20050719032624.GA22060@nietzsche.lynx.com> <20050719123457.GC12368@elte.hu>
Sender: linux-xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i
On Tue, Jul 19, 2005 at 02:34:57PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> (I do disagree with Christoph on another point: i do think we eventually 
> want to change the standard semaphore type in a similar fashion upstream 
> as well - but that probably has to come with a s/struct semaphore/struct 
> mutex/ change as well.)

Actually having a mutex_t in mainline would be a good idea even without
preempt rt, to document better what kind of locking we expect.


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>