lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2005]   [Apr]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [OOPS] 2.6.11 - NMI lockup with CFQ scheduler
On Thu, Apr 07 2005, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-04-07 at 14:22 +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > Do we really need the sdev_lock pointer? There's just a single place
> > where we're using it and the code would be much more clear if it had just
> > one name.
>
> Humour me for a while. I don't believe we have any way the lock can be
> used after calling queue free, but nulling the sdev_lock pointer will
> surely catch them. If nothing turns up after a few kernel revisions,
> feel free to kill it.

I think Christophs point is that why add sdev_lock as a pointer, instead
of just killing it? It's only used in one location, so it's not really
that confusing (and a comment could fix that).

--
Jens Axboe

-
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: 2005-04-07 15:39    [W:0.037 / U:8.884 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site