Peter T. Breuer wrote:

> Hey, that's not bad for a small change! 50% of potential programming
> errors sent to the dustbin without ever being encountered.

Then you replace errors with inefficiency - nobody discovers that
you needlessly take a lock twice.  They notice OOPSes though, the
lock gurus can then debug it.

Trading performance for simplicity is ok in some cases, but I have a strong
felling this isn't one of them.  Consider how people optimize locking
by shaving off a single cycle when they can, and try to avoid
locking as much as possible for that big smp scalability.

This is something better done right - people should just take the
trouble.

Helge Hafting

-
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/