From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754993Ab3KENSn (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Nov 2013 08:18:43 -0500 Received: from cdptpa-outbound-snat.email.rr.com ([107.14.166.225]:7516 "EHLO cdptpa-oedge-vip.email.rr.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754331Ab3KENSm (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Nov 2013 08:18:42 -0500 Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2013 08:18:38 -0500 From: Steven Rostedt To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: torvalds@linux-foundation.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com, oleg@redhat.com, dhowells@redhat.com, willy@linux.intel.com, tglx@linutronix.de, airlied@gmail.com, maarten.lankhorst@canonical.com, walken@google.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar Subject: Re: [RFC 0/8] Move locking primitives into kernel/locking/ Message-ID: <20131105081838.27c7fcd4@gandalf.local.home> In-Reply-To: <20131105105244.666320103@infradead.org> References: <20131105105244.666320103@infradead.org> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.9.2 (GTK+ 2.24.20; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-RR-Connecting-IP: 107.14.168.142:25 X-Cloudmark-Score: 0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 05 Nov 2013 13:10:44 +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 > M: Peter Zijlstra > M: Oleg Nesterov > M: "Paul E. McKenney" > M: Linus Torvalds > T: git git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tip/tip.git locking/core > S: Maintained > F: kernel/locking/ I wonder if it should be called kernel/locks, as that's less to type, smaller path names, and tastes good on bagels. -- Steve > > Because for most 'fun' locking discussions we usually end up with at least > those people anyway :-) >