Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 21:25:21 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 21:25:20 -0500 Received: from neon-gw-l3.transmeta.com ([63.209.4.196]:28431 "EHLO neon-gw.transmeta.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 21:25:20 -0500 Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2003 18:33:47 -0800 (PST) From: Linus Torvalds To: Robert Love cc: Zwane Mwaikambo , Linux Kernel Subject: Re: [PATCH] small fixes in brlock.h In-Reply-To: <1047255325.680.22.camel@phantasy.awol.org> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1019 Lines: 26 On 9 Mar 2003, Robert Love wrote: > > I guess nothing uses these irq variants. In fact, grepping the > source... wow, not much uses brlocks at all. Only registered lock is > BR_NETPROTO_LOCK. A read lock on it is called only 7 times and a write > lock is used 31 times. > > Everything must of moved over to using RCU or something. It makes me > question the future of these things. No, I don't think there are even "moved to RCU" users. It's just never been used very much, since the writes are _so_ expensive (in fact, there have been various live-locks on the writer side, the whole brlock thing is really questionable). It's entirely possible that the current user could be replaced by RCU and/or seqlocks, and we could get rid of brlocks entirely. Linus - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/