Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 21 May 2003 21:00:46 -0400 (EDT) | From | Rik van Riel <> | Subject | RE: recursive spinlocks. Shoot. |
| |
On Mon, 19 May 2003, Robert White wrote:
> In point of fact, "proper" locking, when combined with "proper" > definitions of an interface dictate that recursive locking is "better". > Demanding that a call_EE_ know what locks a call_ER_ (and all > antecedents of caller) will have taken is not exactly good design.
So call_EE_ messes with the data structure which call_ER_ has locked, unexpectedly because the recursive locking doesn't show up as an error.
Looks like recursive locking would just make debugging harder.
Rik -- Engineers don't grow up, they grow sideways. http://www.surriel.com/ http://kernelnewbies.org/ - 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/
| |