On Sun, 2005-09-11 at 15:25 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> James Bottomley <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > Actually, the concept of a klist is quite nice, and the beauty is that
> > all the locking is internal to them, so users can't actually get it
> > wrong (I like interfaces like this).
>
> You're a bit screwed if you want to use them from interrupts..
Yes, but then they're for refcounted lists. Quite a few of our
refcounted structures aren't safe for final put from interrupt either.
I take the implied point about wanting to leave the lock selection up to
the list head provider... I just can't see an elegant way of
implementing it given how tightly klist iterators have to bind to the
locking and refcounting. We could always add another pair of
list_head_lock() list_head_unlock() functions which it's up to the
list_head provider also to supply ... I'm just surprised I didn't get
hammered for using that nasty OO concept of delegates with the get/put
functions ... I'm sure someone will notice if I do it a second time.
James
James
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
| |
 |