Hello Peter,
> And while you might not see it in-tree anymore, lockdep does help out
> tremendously while developing new code. I'm sure that without it the
> locking would be in a much worse state than it is today.
I am not arguing that, I am also convinced it has done a good job.
> I have a good idea on how to annotate this, but not yet the time to do
> so.
Sounds good...
> Aside from the nesting problems, the dev->sem has other problems as
> well. Converting this is rather non-trivial.
Which problems? I did not see any special things, it looked rather
straight forward. What have I overlooked?
> I'd not put it as harshly as you put it though, lockdep makes some
> assumptions which can lead to false positives -
By putting it this black and white, it usually helps to get all the
opinions clear ;-)
(By staying in the middle, everybody usually tend to agree ;-)
> otoh these assumptions
> often end up pointing out 'curious' locking coupled to 'curious' data
> structures. And fixing up these things often leads to better and simpler
> code.
> The emphasis is on often, this is one of the cases where this is not so.
> So while it does restain the creativity of locking it often ends up
> being for the better.
Ack.
Kind Regards,
Remy
--
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]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
