Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 29 Nov 2007 08:56:15 +0100 | From | Jarek Poplawski <> | Subject | Re: Question regarding mutex locking |
| |
On 29-11-2007 03:34, David Schwartz wrote: >> Thanks for the help. Someday, I hope to understand this stuff. >> >> Larry > > Any code either deals with an object or it doesn't. If it doesn't deal with > that object, it should not be acquiring locks on that object. If it does > deal with that object, it must know the internal details of that object, > including when and whether locks are held, or it cannot deal with that > object sanely. ...
Maybe it'll unnecessarily complicate the thing, but since you repeat the need to know the object - sometimes the locking is done to synchronize something in time only, so to assure only one action is done at a time or a few actions are done in proper order, or/and shouldn't be broken in the meantime by other actions (so, no need to deal with any common data).
But, of course, we can say an action could be a kind of object too.
Regards, Jarek P. - 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/
| |