[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [RFC PATCH 0/3] xen/spinlock: make recursive spinlocks a dedicated type
- To: Juergen Gross <jgross@xxxxxxxx>, xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- From: "Daniel P. Smith" <dpsmith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2022 10:03:07 -0500
- Arc-authentication-results: i=1; mx.zohomail.com; dkim=pass header.i=apertussolutions.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=dpsmith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; dmarc=pass header.from=<dpsmith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Arc-message-signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=zohomail.com; s=zohoarc; t=1671030193; h=Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Cc:Date:From:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Message-ID:References:Subject:To; bh=ziw5uJWrPocAPMdIHontHrRbLbVHDc1OW1HD88yaKng=; b=VorjYlI1I+t+It6ypHLd30oALy1Hb36TCL2JDo6eung5SBUlJlaQgFpDmLOCDQjmfohBAAIPNmx57V94rS9u0JW5xNT782zdWLz7IvEQhA/RkjPfS74FQ6Y4x4LdWMHQSxxejadBkuh4JPRHPaFaLbfR4lrVogYLLDvfrDIG+GU=
- Arc-seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1671030193; cv=none; d=zohomail.com; s=zohoarc; b=To0eg3nOPOFaIqo/Uz9qgpCBZSq/VldJXqLvC2NaHm8juC/p5yq9ESjf6FzPxoIJ8kKmcr3EKR+hbHvvXn5xQBpkSx/vIdiPmao2d+22VWKzib7R089jJmnuvmnhth0OIAaloLZ0KVcMi/oHMtvlEOsfbDLYhcwhdE3q2i+Cf04=
- Cc: Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@xxxxxxxxxx>, Julien Grall <julien@xxxxxxx>, Bertrand Marquis <bertrand.marquis@xxxxxxx>, Volodymyr Babchuk <Volodymyr_Babchuk@xxxxxxxx>, Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>, George Dunlap <george.dunlap@xxxxxxxxxx>, Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>, Wei Liu <wl@xxxxxxx>, Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx>, Tamas K Lengyel <tamas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Lukasz Hawrylko <lukasz@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Mateusz Mówka <mateusz.mowka@xxxxxxxxx>, Paul Durrant <paul@xxxxxxx>
- Delivery-date: Wed, 14 Dec 2022 15:03:22 +0000
- List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xenproject.org>
On 9/10/22 11:49, Juergen Gross wrote:
Instead of being able to use normal spinlocks as recursive ones, too,
make recursive spinlocks a special lock type.
This will make the spinlock structure smaller in production builds and
add type-safety.
Just a little yak shaving, IMHO a spinlock is normally not expected to
be recursive. Thus explicitly naming a spinlock as non-recursive I find
to be redundant along with being expensive for typing. Whereas a
recursive spinlock is the special instance and should have a declarative
distinction. Only codifying the recursive type would significantly cut
down on the size of the series and still provide equal type and visual
clarification.
v/r,
dps
|
