Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] plist: add mutex to the blessed lock type for plists | From | Steven Rostedt <> | Date | Thu, 30 Jun 2011 18:45:18 -0400 |
| |
On Thu, 2011-06-30 at 15:14 -0700, Dima Zavin wrote: > Steve, > > So what would do you recommend I do? Is this patch acceptable or do > you want me to remove all the debug stuff and modify all the users to > not provide a lock? >
I'm fine either way. I would like to know what Thomas, Ingo and Peter think.
-- Steve
> On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 1:43 PM, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> wrote: > > On Wed, 2011-06-29 at 13:34 -0700, Dima Zavin wrote: > > > >> The whole enforcement of locking inside this code is awkward anyway. > >> We don't enforce locking on rb_trees, or on list_head, etc. Why > >> plists? The funny part is that the test code in plist.c itself has a > >> hack to skip the lock check. > > > > It's a legacy from the -rt tree. With the development there, there was > > always a case where a plist was added without the proper locking, and we > > spent days debugging it. This test proved very useful. As plists came to > > mainline, we kept the tests. > > > > Now, getting rid of them maybe the thing to do. I'm not sure how useful > > they are today. > > > > -- Steve > > > > > >
| |