Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 08 Oct 2008 12:53:56 -0400 | From | Steven Rostedt <> | Subject | Re: [RFC][PATCH 7/7] lockdep: spin_lock_nest_lock() |
| |
Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > I know for a fact that some people thought unlocking in non-nested order > was a bug. And I believe that belief is a dangerous one. >
Ah, OK. You are fighting against nesting nazis, fair enough.
I have written a bit of code where nesting was not possible (similar to your example, but I call those traversal locking not nesting). I just find that the locks should be nested when the nesting is natural. Breaking the nesting on natural nesting locks is a bug, IMHO. But as you know, there are several programmers out there that can not determine the difference between natural nesting locks and non nesting locks.
By adding such a rule, those that can not tell the difference will be making a lot of needless noise, hence, it is best not to make any such rule.
Lesson learned. I'll now go back to debugging my code.
-- Steve
| |