lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2000]   [Dec]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: check_lock() in d_move() and switch_names()?
On Tue, 5 Dec 2000, Alexander Viro wrote:
> > The check for BKL in d_move() and switch_names() seem to be unnecessary as
> > d_move() takes dcache_lock and switch_names() is only called by
> > d_move(). So, if the callers take BKL just for the sake of d_move() they
> > do not need to, but if, for other reasons, then that is fine. In any case,
> > the checks in both functions can be removed, imho. Opinions?
>
> Tigran, _please_ stop it. d_move() needs BKL. Test in question is a
> sanity check _and_ reminder of that fact, so please leave it in place.
> Microoptimizations are OK when they make the code cleaner, but here...

Alexander, in one point at least you are wrong. That one point is -- I did
_not_ suggest any optimizations (especially microoptimizations). I was
merely trying to see exactly _why_ d_move() needs a BKL since it takes
dcache_lock which already protects the lists which d_move manipulats.

You did, however provide useful information, namely the statement "d_move
needs BKL", albeit, without any proof to the truth thereof. So, I'll look
closer and try to find the proof myself.

Thank you,
Tigran

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 12:51    [W:0.048 / U:1.908 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site