From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756745Ab3KHHiV (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Nov 2013 02:38:21 -0500 Received: from merlin.infradead.org ([205.233.59.134]:44026 "EHLO merlin.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753246Ab3KHHiR (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Nov 2013 02:38:17 -0500 Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2013 08:37:48 +0100 From: Peter Zijlstra To: "Paul E. McKenney" Cc: torvalds@linux-foundation.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, oleg@redhat.com, dhowells@redhat.com, willy@linux.intel.com, tglx@linutronix.de, rostedt@goodmis.org, 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: <20131108073748.GF19203@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> References: <20131105105244.666320103@infradead.org> <20131106142921.GJ18245@linux.vnet.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20131106142921.GJ18245@linux.vnet.ibm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2012-12-30) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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 > > 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/ > > > > 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 :-)