Re: [PATCH] plist: add mutex to the blessed lock type for plists

[Steven Rostedt]

On Thu, 2011-06-30 at 15:14 -0700, Dima Zavin wrote:
> Steve,
> 
> So what would do you recommend I do? Is this patch acceptable or do
> you want me to remove all the debug stuff and modify all the users to
> not provide a lock?
> 

I'm fine either way. I would like to know what Thomas, Ingo and Peter
think.

-- Steve

> On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 1:43 PM, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2011-06-29 at 13:34 -0700, Dima Zavin wrote:
> >
> >> The whole enforcement of locking inside this code is awkward anyway.
> >> We don't enforce locking on rb_trees, or on list_head, etc. Why
> >> plists? The funny part is that the test code in plist.c itself has a
> >> hack to skip the lock check.
> >
> > It's a legacy from the -rt tree. With the development there, there was
> > always a case where a plist was added without the proper locking, and we
> > spent days debugging it. This test proved very useful. As plists came to
> > mainline, we kept the tests.
> >
> > Now, getting rid of them maybe the thing to do. I'm not sure how useful
> > they are today.
> >
> > -- Steve
> >
> >
> >


--
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/