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:0.173 / U:0.416 seconds]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site