Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
From:   Waiman Long <llong@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 15/63] locking: Add base code for RT rw_semaphore and
 rwlock
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Waiman Long <llong@redhat.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@redhat.com>,
        Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
        Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>,
        Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>,
        Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>
References: <20210730135007.155909613@linutronix.de>
 <20210730135206.018846923@linutronix.de>
 <710fff58-1db3-d0c2-21db-b1837d37bfee@redhat.com> <87o8ac1cv8.ffs@tglx>
Message-ID: <4040ac0a-970b-bd47-1ffb-14eee56c672a@redhat.com>
Date:   Thu, 5 Aug 2021 10:59:02 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/78.11.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <87o8ac1cv8.ffs@tglx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
Precedence: bulk

On 8/5/21 5:04 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 04 2021 at 15:37, Waiman Long wrote:
>> On 7/30/21 9:50 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>>> +static int __sched rwbase_write_lock(struct rwbase_rt *rwb,
>>> +				     unsigned int state)
>>> +{
>>> +	struct rt_mutex_base *rtm = &rwb->rtmutex;
>>> +	unsigned long flags;
>>> +
>>> +	/* Take the rtmutex as a first step */
>>> +	if (rwbase_rtmutex_lock_state(rtm, state))
>> This function is used here before it was defined in next patch (patch 16).
> Correct and there are more I think. But that's a hen and egg
> problem:
>
> The base code cannot be compiled without the actual implementation for
> either rw_semaphore or rw_lock substitutions. The implementations cannot
> be compiled without the base code.
>
> So I chose to split it up so the base logic is separate.
>
> Thanks,
>
I realize that after the fact that the code introduced by this patch 
won't be compiled until the later patch is merged. So it is all OK.

Thanks,
Longman