Re: [PATCH 11/18] fs: Introduce per-bucket inode hash locks

[Andi Kleen]

Nick Piggin <npiggin@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
>> Providing
>> locking wrappers that are exactly what users need so they don't have
>> to care about it is, IMO, the right thing to do.
>
> Hiding the type of lock, and hiding the fact that it sets the low bit?
> I don't agree. We don't have synchronization in our data structures,
> where possible, because it is just restrictive or goes wrong when people
> don't think enough about the locking.

I fully agree. The old skb lists in networking made this mistake
long ago and it was a big problem, until people essentially stopped 
using it (always using __ variants) and it was eventually removed.

Magic locking in data structures is usually a bad idea.

-Andi

-- 
ak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx -- Speaking for myself only.
--
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/