lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2003]   [May]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: recursive spinlocks. Shoot.
--William Lee Irwin III <wli@holomorphy.com> wrote (on Sunday, May 18, 2003 09:54:45 -0700):

> At some point in the past, Peter Breuer's attribution was removed from:
>>>>> Here's a before-breakfast implementation of a recursive spinlock. That
>>>>> is, the same thread can "take" the spinlock repeatedly.
>
> On Sun, May 18, 2003 at 09:30:17AM -0700, Martin J. Bligh wrote:
>>>> Why?
>
> On Sun, 2003-05-18 at 18:35, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
>>> netconsole.
>
> On Sun, May 18, 2003 at 06:49:04PM +0200, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
>> not really.
>> the netconsole issue is tricky and recursive, but recursive locks aren't
>> the solution; that would require a rewrite of the network drivers. It's
>> far easier to solve it by moving the debug printk's instead.
>
> Yes, there are better ways to fix it. But AIUI this is why some people
> want it (the rest of us just don't want messy locking semantics around).

Right ... to me this just seems to create confusing code for no really
good reason that I can see right now.

M.

-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:35    [W:0.047 / U:1.108 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site