Messages in this thread | | | From | "Robert White" <> | Subject | RE: recursive spinlocks. Shoot. | Date | Wed, 21 May 2003 17:32:00 -0700 |
| |
yep, I kind of figured that was going to happen... (doh! 8-)
(I was groping for the example without my references at hand. My bad for crediting someone with willingness to reason when I know they deliberately do not want to get the point... My apologies to the rest of the list here... 8-)
Did my error in routine selection render you so fixated on counting coup that you TOTALLY missed the point about aggregation of operations?
I bet it did...
/sigh
-----Original Message----- From: viro@www.linux.org.uk [mailto:viro@www.linux.org.uk]On Behalf Of viro@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2003 5:14 PM To: Robert White Cc: root@chaos.analogic.com; Helge Hafting; Linux kernel Subject: Re: recursive spinlocks. Shoot.
On Wed, May 21, 2003 at 02:56:12PM -0700, Robert White wrote: > Lets say I have a file system with a perfectly implemented unlink and a > perfectly implemented rename. Both of these routines need to exist exactly > as they are. Both of these routines need to lock the vfs dentry subsystem > (look it up.)
_Do_ look it up. Neither ->unlink() nor ->rename() need to do anything with any sort of dentry locking or modifications.
Illustrates the point rather nicely, doesn't it? What was that about taking locks out of laziness and ignorance, again? 2%? You really like to feel yourself a member of select group...
Unfortunately, that group is nowhere near that select - look up the Sturgeon's Law somewhere. 90% of anything and all such...
- 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/
| |