This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [PATCH 2/2] New pthread rwlock that is more scalable.
- From: Torvald Riegel <triegel at redhat dot com>
- To: "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos at redhat dot com>
- Cc: GLIBC Devel <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>, Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddhesh at redhat dot com>
- Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2017 12:02:10 +0100
- Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] New pthread rwlock that is more scalable.
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <1469655533.19224.27.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1469655868.19224.34.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1482525381.14990.834.camel@redhat.com> <637c86f3-bf65-fc74-6004-b3870739c64e@redhat.com>
On Tue, 2017-01-10 at 01:36 -0500, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> Is it really necessary to switch from unlocked/locked
> to 'not acquired'/acquired?
I think it's better (eg, it works better with having an owner and having
reader/writer ownership (do you lock "as a reader"? "for reading"?...),
we say "lock acquisiton" or "mutex acquisition" instead of "lock
locking", etc.). It also matches that we use "acquire" in our internal
documentation (though one may say that this is a biased argument, given
that I've been pushing for this). It matches acquire and release MO.
The pretty printers are new this release, so the change shouldn't break
existing uses. I should adapt the mutex printers too for consistency, I
guess.