Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 07:40:34 +0100
From: Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@o2.pl>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Question regarding mutex locking
Message-ID: <20071129064034.GB9536@ff.dom.local>
References: <474CF06C.8020208@lwfinger.net> <jemysy2y3y.fsf@sykes.suse.de> <474D8C22.7010902@lwfinger.net> <474DEF79.1080900@o2.pl> <20071128153312.14144472@freepuppy.rosehill>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20071128153312.14144472@freepuppy.rosehill>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1043
Lines: 25

On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 03:33:12PM -0800, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
...
> WTF are you teaching a lesson on how NOT to do locking?
> 
> Any code which has this kind of convoluted dependency on conditional
> locking is fundamentally broken.
> 

As a matter of fact I've been thinking, about one more Re: to myself
to point this all is a good example how problematic such solution
would be, but I've decided it's rather apparent. IMHO learning needs
bad examples too - to better understand why they should be avoided.

On the other hand, I've seen quite a lot of fundamentally right, but
practically broken code, so I'm not sure what's better. And, btw., I
guess this 'fundamentally broken' type of locking could be found in
the kernel too, but I'd prefer not too look after this now.

Thanks,
Jarek P.
-
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/