Re: [PATCH] plist: add mutex to the blessed lock type for plists

[Dima Zavin]

Steve,

So what would do you recommend I do? Is this patch acceptable or do
you want me to remove all the debug stuff and modify all the users to
not provide a lock?

--Dima

On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 1:43 PM, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-06-29 at 13:34 -0700, Dima Zavin wrote:
>
>> The whole enforcement of locking inside this code is awkward anyway.
>> We don't enforce locking on rb_trees, or on list_head, etc. Why
>> plists? The funny part is that the test code in plist.c itself has a
>> hack to skip the lock check.
>
> It's a legacy from the -rt tree. With the development there, there was
> always a case where a plist was added without the proper locking, and we
> spent days debugging it. This test proved very useful. As plists came to
> mainline, we kept the tests.
>
> Now, getting rid of them maybe the thing to do. I'm not sure how useful
> they are today.
>
> -- Steve
>
>
>
--
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/