Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Tue, 5 Dec 2000 19:48:25 +0000 (GMT) | From | Tigran Aivazian <> | Subject | Re: 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/
|  |