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 <mi...@redhat.com> > > M: Peter Zijlstra <pet...@infradead.org> > > M: Oleg Nesterov <o...@redhat.com> > > M: "Paul E. McKenney" <paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> > > M: Linus Torvalds <torva...@linux-foundation.org> > > 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 majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
