From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S938854AbcJGQNf (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Fri, 7 Oct 2016 12:13:35 -0400
Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([198.137.202.9]:60708 "EHLO
        bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S933178AbcJGQN2 (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Fri, 7 Oct 2016 12:13:28 -0400
Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2016 18:13:14 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Waiman Long <waiman.long@hpe.com>, Jason Low <jason.low2@hpe.com>,
        Ding Tianhong <dingtianhong@huawei.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Will Deacon <Will.Deacon@arm.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Imre Deak <imre.deak@intel.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>,
        Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>, Terry Rudd <terry.rudd@hpe.com>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@us.ibm.com>,
        Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>,
        Rob Clark <robdclark@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -v4 1/8] locking/drm: Kill mutex trickery
Message-ID: <20161007161314.GD3142@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20161007145243.361481786@infradead.org>
 <20161007150210.927453282@infradead.org>
 <20161007154351.GL3117@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <CA+55aFwkqwO8RFoRQZz2DTe-e-jgg2Vw1MjPGp4+i5wmno4vMw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CA+55aFwkqwO8RFoRQZz2DTe-e-jgg2Vw1MjPGp4+i5wmno4vMw@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23.1 (2014-03-12)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Fri, Oct 07, 2016 at 08:58:43AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Ugh. I think the concept is fine, but can we place make these enum's
> be all upper case or something to make them really stand out visually.

OK.

> The other choice would be to just make the choices be negative (==
> recursive), zero (== failed) or positive (== got lock), which allows
> for the same value re-use for the non-recursive case, and you could
> avoid the enum entirely.

I thought about that, but liked the enum better for having to then spell
it out.

I'll go make the enum shout and add comment as you suggest.