Re: [PATCH] netfilter: use per-cpu recursive lock (v11)

[Eric Dumazet]

Linus Torvalds a écrit :
> 
> On Wed, 22 Apr 2009, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>> If this could be done without recursion, I am pretty sure netfilter
>> and network guys would have done it. I found Linus reaction quite
>> shocking IMHO, considering hard work done by all people on this.
> 
> You don't _understand_ do you?
> 
> There is a huge difference between recursive code, and a recursive lock.
> 
> The netfilter code may need to occasionally re-enter itself. Nobody ever 
> contested _that_ part.
> 
> What I have disagreed with the whole time is 
> 
>  (a) doing local ad-hoc locking primitives without any comments 
>      what-so-ever.
> 
>  (b) Doing them _wrong_ in many cases
> 
>  (c) Calling the _lock_ a "recursive" lock.
> 
> The fact that a lock works with recursion doesn't make it "recursive". 
> That generally has a very special meaning for locking primitives, and 
> means something else.
> 
> In contrast, a read-write lock actually has known properties, and we have 
> existing locking mechanisms for those. And we call them read-write locks 
> DESPITE THE FACT that the reading part can be done recursively. 
> 
> If you call a read-write lock a "recursive" lock, then you're a moron. 
> It simply is _not_ a recursive lock. And neither is the lock you actually 
> implemented, even though you (and Stephen) continually call it that. 
> 
> SO STOP CALLING IT A RECURSIVE LOCK. Look at your very own code: you can 
> actually only use that lock in a recursive context in a _very_ specific 
> place. Notice how it's only "recursive" when taken in the per-CPU context, 
> but _not_ recursive when the filter-updating code ("writer") takes it?
> 
> Do you understand now? It really shouldn't be so hard for you. 
> 
> Naming is important. Locking is important. You did both things wrong. You 
> named your locks something incorrect and mis-leading that didn't actually 
> describe them, and you did your own private locking code without then 
> documenting what the rules for this special lock were.
> 
> Maybe in your world that's ok. But no, in mine it's not. I've seen too 
> many damn _non-functioning_ locks to ever want to see stuff like that 
> again.
> 
>

Linus,

I actually sent *one* buggy patch, and you already gave your feedback and NACK.

Fine

I even relayed this to Stephen suggesting him not calling this a recursive lock.
(Note how I use 'suggesting' here)

So, what do you want from me ? Should I copy 100 times :

"I should not call it a recursive lock. I shall not invent new locking infra. I am a moron." 
"I should not call it a recursive lock. I shall not invent new locking infra. I am a moron." 
"I should not call it a recursive lock. I shall not invent new locking infra. I am a moron." 
"I should not call it a recursive lock. I shall not invent new locking infra. I am a moron." 
"I should not call it a recursive lock. I shall not invent new locking infra. I am a moron." 
"I should not call it a recursive lock. I shall not invent new locking infra. I am a moron." 
...

OK done

Can we now proceed and continue ?

Thank you

--
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/