Re: [PATCH] block: add assert_spin_locked() to ensure lock is held

[Namhyung Kim]

On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 21:48, Jens Axboe <axboe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> As far as I know, no such bug has ever occurred that I know
> of. So while I don't mind adding such instrumentation, there's
> little point to doing it when you are not seeing any usability
> problems in there. And all these paths (requeue less) are
> heavily used, so problems would appear quickly.
>

I didn't see any problems in there. I just thought
if a code has such a restriction, generally it is better
to have an explicit assertion in the code also
not only in comments. Since those functions are
EXPORTed ones I thought there will be a possibility
of misusing them, although they could be found
quickly without this facility. :-)


-- 
Regards,
Namhyung Kim
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/