Re: [PATCH 05/17] fs: icache lock i_count

[Andrew Morton]

On Fri, 1 Oct 2010 02:16:02 -0400 Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 11:04:16PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > No, we've run into problems *frequently*.  A common case is where we
> > convert a mutex to a spinlock or vice versa.  If you don't rename the
> > lock, the code still compiles (with warnings) and crashes horridly at
> > runtime.
> 
> Sorry, if you run code with that obvious warnings you beg for trouble.
> If you really believe your advanced users arw too stupid to read
> compiler warnings enforcing -Werror is for sure better than obsfucating
> the code.

Well, it has happened, fairly regularly.  A common scenario is where
someone has done a conversion in one tree and someone else has touched
overlapping code in another tree and when the two meet in linux-next,
splat.  Renaming the field simply eliminates this.

Of course, the warnings don't get noticed because of the enormous
warning storm which a kernel build produces (generally much worse on
non-x86, btw).

Another reason for remaining a field is when we desire that it
henceforth be accessed via accessor functions - renaming it will
reliably break any unconverted code.
--
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/