Re: I request inclusion of reiser4 in the mainline kernel

["Vladimir V. Saveliev" <vs@namesys.com>]

Hello

Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> ...
> Looking at the actual code all these point to the spin lock obsufcation
> SPIN_LOCK_FUNCTIONS/RW_LOCK_FUNCTIONS from spin_macros.h which I told
> to get rid of in the first round of reviews. 
> ...

reiser4 spinlock macros provide following functionality:

    (1) encapsulation of locks: instead of writing spin_lock(&obj->lock),
    where obj is object of type foo, one writes spin_lock_foo(obj).

    (2) keeping information about number of locks of particular type currently
held by thread

    (3) checking that locks are acquired in the proper order.

    (4) collection of spin lock contention statistics


I agree that (1) is not very necessary. (2) and (4) helped a lot in early
debugging. Now we are about to remove it.

However, we would prefer to keep (3). It makes catching spinlock deadlocks very
easy. Don't you think that makes sence?

Thanks
-
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/