Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 19 May 2003 07:28:22 -0700 | From | "Martin J. Bligh" <> | Subject | Re: recursive spinlocks. Shoot. |
| |
> That's a problem looking for a solution! No, the reason for wanting a > recursive spinlock is that nonrecursive locks make programming harder.
And more correct.
> Though I've got quite good at finding and removing deadlocks in my old > age, there are still two popular ways that the rest of the world's > prgrammers often shoot themselves in the foot with a spinlock: > > a) sleeping while holding the spinlock > b) taking the spinlock in a subroutine while you already have it
So ... we should BUG() on both.
M. - 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/
| |