Re: [patch 37/61] lock validator: special locking: dcache

[Ingo Molnar]

* Steven Rostedt <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> > > +enum dentry_d_lock_type
> > > +{
> > > +	DENTRY_D_LOCK_NORMAL,
> > > +	DENTRY_D_LOCK_NESTED
> > > +};
> > > +
> > >  struct dentry_operations {
> > >  	int (*d_revalidate)(struct dentry *, struct nameidata *);
> > >  	int (*d_hash) (struct dentry *, struct qstr *);
> > 
> > DENTRY_D_LOCK_NORMAL isn't used anywhere.
> 
> I guess it is implied with the normal spin_lock.  Since 
>   spin_lock(&target->d_lock) and
>   spin_lock_nested(&target->d_lock, DENTRY_D_LOCK_NORMAL)
> are equivalent. (DENTRY_D_LOCK_NORMAL == 0)

correct. This is the case for all the subtype enum definitions: 0 means 
normal spinlock [rwlock, rwsem, mutex] API use.

	Ingo
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/