Re: [PATCH v5 2/7] mutex: add support for wound/wait style locks, v5

2013-06-21 Thread Ingo Molnar
* Maarten Lankhorst maarten.lankho...@canonical.com wrote: Changes since RFC patch v1: - Updated to use atomic_long instead of atomic, since the reservation_id was a long. - added mutex_reserve_lock_slow and mutex_reserve_lock_intr_slow - removed mutex_locked_set_reservation_id (or w/e

Re: [PATCH v5 2/7] mutex: add support for wound/wait style locks, v5

2013-06-21 Thread Ingo Molnar
* Maarten Lankhorst maarten.lankho...@canonical.com wrote: +The algorithm that TTM came up with for dealing with this problem is quite +simple. [...] 'TTM' here reads like a person - but in reality it's the TTM graphics subsystem, right? Please clarify this portion of the text. Thanks,

Re: [PATCH v5 2/7] mutex: add support for wound/wait style locks, v5

2013-06-21 Thread Ingo Molnar
* Maarten Lankhorst maarten.lankho...@canonical.com wrote: Well they've helped me with some of the changes and contributed some code and/or fixes, but if acked-by is preferred I'll use that.. Such contributions can be credited in the changelog, and/or copyright notices, and/or the code

[PATCH v5 2/7] mutex: add support for wound/wait style locks, v5

2013-06-20 Thread Ingo Molnar
* Maarten Lankhorst wrote: > Well they've helped me with some of the changes and contributed some > code and/or fixes, but if acked-by is preferred I'll use that.. Such contributions can be credited in the changelog, and/or copyright notices, and/or the code itself. The signoff chain on the

[PATCH v5 2/7] mutex: add support for wound/wait style locks, v5

2013-06-20 Thread Maarten Lankhorst
Op 20-06-13 13:55, Ingo Molnar schreef: > * Maarten Lankhorst wrote: > >> Changes since RFC patch v1: >> - Updated to use atomic_long instead of atomic, since the reservation_id >> was a long. >> - added mutex_reserve_lock_slow and mutex_reserve_lock_intr_slow >> - removed

[PATCH v5 2/7] mutex: add support for wound/wait style locks, v5

2013-06-20 Thread Ingo Molnar
* Maarten Lankhorst wrote: > +The algorithm that TTM came up with for dealing with this problem is quite > +simple. [...] 'TTM' here reads like a person - but in reality it's the TTM graphics subsystem, right? Please clarify this portion of the text. Thanks, Ingo

[PATCH v5 2/7] mutex: add support for wound/wait style locks, v5

2013-06-20 Thread Ingo Molnar
* Maarten Lankhorst wrote: > Changes since RFC patch v1: > - Updated to use atomic_long instead of atomic, since the reservation_id was > a long. > - added mutex_reserve_lock_slow and mutex_reserve_lock_intr_slow > - removed mutex_locked_set_reservation_id (or w/e it was called) > Changes

[PATCH v5 2/7] mutex: add support for wound/wait style locks, v5

2013-06-20 Thread Maarten Lankhorst
Changes since RFC patch v1: - Updated to use atomic_long instead of atomic, since the reservation_id was a long. - added mutex_reserve_lock_slow and mutex_reserve_lock_intr_slow - removed mutex_locked_set_reservation_id (or w/e it was called) Changes since RFC patch v2: - remove use of

[PATCH v5 2/7] mutex: add support for wound/wait style locks, v5

2013-06-20 Thread Maarten Lankhorst
Changes since RFC patch v1: - Updated to use atomic_long instead of atomic, since the reservation_id was a long. - added mutex_reserve_lock_slow and mutex_reserve_lock_intr_slow - removed mutex_locked_set_reservation_id (or w/e it was called) Changes since RFC patch v2: - remove use of

Re: [PATCH v5 2/7] mutex: add support for wound/wait style locks, v5

2013-06-20 Thread Maarten Lankhorst
Op 20-06-13 13:55, Ingo Molnar schreef: * Maarten Lankhorst maarten.lankho...@canonical.com wrote: Changes since RFC patch v1: - Updated to use atomic_long instead of atomic, since the reservation_id was a long. - added mutex_reserve_lock_slow and mutex_reserve_lock_intr_slow - removed