lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Oct]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 11/18] fs: Introduce per-bucket inode hash locks
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 06:16:50PM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > Hiding the type of lock, and hiding the fact that it sets the low bit?
> > I don't agree. We don't have synchronization in our data structures,
> > where possible, because it is just restrictive or goes wrong when people
> > don't think enough about the locking.
>
> I fully agree. The old skb lists in networking made this mistake
> long ago and it was a big problem, until people essentially stopped
> using it (always using __ variants) and it was eventually removed.
>
> Magic locking in data structures is usually a bad idea.

Err, there is no implicit locking in the calls to hlist_*. There
is just two small wrappers for the bit-lock/unlock so that the callers
don't have to know how the lock is overloaded onto the pointer in the
list head.



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-10-18 18:23    [W:0.133 / U:0.188 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site