Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1761034AbZD0Ugl (ORCPT ); Mon, 27 Apr 2009 16:36:41 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1760877AbZD0Ug1 (ORCPT ); Mon, 27 Apr 2009 16:36:27 -0400 Received: from tservice.ru ([195.178.208.66]:42485 "EHLO tservice.net.ru" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1760694AbZD0Ug0 (ORCPT ); Mon, 27 Apr 2009 16:36:26 -0400 Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 00:36:16 +0400 From: Evgeniy Polyakov To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Stephen Hemminger , Ingo Molnar , Peter Zijlstra , Mathieu Desnoyers , Eric Dumazet , David Miller , Jarek Poplawski , Paul Mackerras , paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com, kaber@trash.net, jeff.chua.linux@gmail.com, laijs@cn.fujitsu.com, jengelh@medozas.de, r000n@r000n.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, benh@kernel.crashing.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] netfilter: use per-CPU r**ursive lock {XV} Message-ID: <20090427203616.GB3836@ioremap.net> References: <49F22465.80305@gmail.com> <20090425133052.4cb711f5@nehalam> <49F4A6E3.7080102@cosmosbay.com> <20090426185646.GB29238@Krystal> <20090426145746.1184aeba@nehalam> <1240854297.7620.65.camel@twins> <20090427113010.5e3f1700@nehalam> <20090427185423.GC23862@elte.hu> <20090427120658.35a858bb@nehalam> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 921 Lines: 25 Hi. On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 12:46:48PM -0700, Linus Torvalds (torvalds@linux-foundation.org) wrote: > > All those references support my argument that the lock is being > > used recursively in this case. > > What's so hard between understanding the difference between "used > recursively" and "recursive lock"? > > THEY MEAN TWO TOTALLY DIFFERENT THINGS! > > The fact that you don't seem to understand that is one of the things I've > been complaining about all along. Just ot be sure readers will not lose the discssion topic: do you object against naming or realizaion? If its about the former, does 'dog's breath lock' proposed by Stephen fit? -- Evgeniy Polyakov -- 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/