On Sun, 2003-05-18 at 18:24, Peter T. Breuer wrote:
> The second method is used by programmers who aren't aware that some
> obscure subroutine takes a spinlock, and who recklessly take a lock
> before calling a subroutine (the very thought sends shivers down my
> spine ...). A popular scenario involves not /knowing/ that your routine
> is called by the kernel with some obscure lock already held, and then
> calling a subroutine that calls the same obscure lock. The request
> function is one example, but that's hardly obscure (and in 2.5 the
> situation has eased there!).
To be honest, if any programmer is capable of committing this error and
not finding and fixing it for themselves, then they're also capable, and
arguably _likely_, to introduce subtle lock ordering discrepancies which
will cause deadlock once in a blue moon.
I don't _want_ you to make life easier for this hypothetical programmer.
I want them to either learn to comprehend locking _properly_, or take up
gardening instead.
-- dwmw2- 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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri May 23 2003 - 22:00:31 EST