On Mon, Jun 26, 2000 at 09:11:22PM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Jun 2000, Alexander Viro wrote:
> > On Mon, 26 Jun 2000, David Woodhouse wrote:
> > > While we're at it - can we get rid of MOD_INC_USE_COUNT and
> > > __MOD_INC_USE_COUNT altogether to force people to be aware of the need for
> > > try_inc_mod_count and checking its return value? First thing in 2.5 along
> > > with removing sleep_on() ?
> >
> > Yes. Moreover, I hope that we can effectively get rid of them before 2.5.
> > Which is one of the reasons why I don't like keeping them all over the
> > place, especially if it involves schedule()-based solutions.
>
> I meant remove the definition, not just most of the uses - at least of
> __MOD_INC_USE_COUNT, and force people to use try_inc_mod_count(),
> hopefully checking the return code appropriately.
Actually, one rather nice side-effect of the grab-all-CPU's patch is you
can get rid of try_inc_mod_count (at least if you keep your other locking
structures sane). It always succeeds.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jun 26 2000 - 21:00:09 EST