Subject: Re: 2.6.16-rc1-mm1
From: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org>
To: Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc: Dave Jones <davej@redhat.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>,
       Reuben Farrelly <reuben-lkml@reub.net>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
       Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
In-Reply-To: <1137626021.1760.18.camel@localhost.localdomain>
References: <20060118005053.118f1abc.akpm@osdl.org>
	 <43CE2210.60509@reub.net> <20060118032716.7f0d9b6a.akpm@osdl.org>
	 <20060118190926.GB316@redhat.com>
	 <1137626021.1760.18.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Content-Type: text/plain
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2006 08:16:27 +0100
Message-Id: <1137654987.2993.14.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 876
Lines: 21

On Wed, 2006-01-18 at 23:13 +0000, Alan Cox wrote:
> On Mer, 2006-01-18 at 14:09 -0500, Dave Jones wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 03:27:16AM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > 
> >  > Well yes, that code is kfree()ing a locked mutex.  It's somewhat weird to
> >  > take a lock on a still-private object but whatever.  The code's legal
> >  > enough.
> >  > 
> 
> If someone else can be waiting on it then it doesn't look legal ?

This is why Ingo made the decision to just declare it illegal period for
mutexes (and check for it in debug mode). The obvious exceptions are
error paths, but those aren't perf criticial in any way.


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