lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2003]   [May]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRE: recursive spinlocks. Shoot.
    On Mon, 19 May 2003, Robert White wrote:

    > In point of fact, "proper" locking, when combined with "proper"
    > definitions of an interface dictate that recursive locking is "better".
    > Demanding that a call_EE_ know what locks a call_ER_ (and all
    > antecedents of caller) will have taken is not exactly good design.

    So call_EE_ messes with the data structure which call_ER_
    has locked, unexpectedly because the recursive locking
    doesn't show up as an error.

    Looks like recursive locking would just make debugging
    harder.

    Rik
    --
    Engineers don't grow up, they grow sideways.
    http://www.surriel.com/ http://kernelnewbies.org/
    -
    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/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:35    [W:0.020 / U:62.916 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site