lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2003]   [May]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: recursive spinlocks. Shoot.
    On Wed, May 21, 2003 at 02:56:12PM -0700, Robert White wrote:
    > Lets say I have a file system with a perfectly implemented unlink and a
    > perfectly implemented rename. Both of these routines need to exist exactly
    > as they are. Both of these routines need to lock the vfs dentry subsystem
    > (look it up.)

    _Do_ look it up. Neither ->unlink() nor ->rename() need to do anything with
    any sort of dentry locking or modifications.

    Illustrates the point rather nicely, doesn't it? What was that about
    taking locks out of laziness and ignorance, again? 2%? You really
    like to feel yourself a member of select group...

    Unfortunately, that group is nowhere near that select - look up the
    Sturgeon's Law somewhere. 90% of anything and all such...
    -
    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/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:35    [W:6.325 / U:0.020 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site