Messages in this thread | | | From | Andi Kleen <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 11/18] fs: Introduce per-bucket inode hash locks | Date | Mon, 18 Oct 2010 18:16:50 +0200 |
| |
Nick Piggin <npiggin@kernel.dk> writes: > >> Providing >> locking wrappers that are exactly what users need so they don't have >> to care about it is, IMO, the right thing to do. > > Hiding the type of lock, and hiding the fact that it sets the low bit? > I don't agree. We don't have synchronization in our data structures, > where possible, because it is just restrictive or goes wrong when people > don't think enough about the locking.
I fully agree. The old skb lists in networking made this mistake long ago and it was a big problem, until people essentially stopped using it (always using __ variants) and it was eventually removed.
Magic locking in data structures is usually a bad idea.
-Andi
-- ak@linux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only.
| |