Subject: Re: [PATCH] plist: add mutex to the blessed lock type for plists
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
To: Dima Zavin <dima@android.com>
Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Lai Jiangshan <laijs@cn.fujitsu.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
In-Reply-To: <CAPz4a6CbzEm3QJZ-5wsaiSH1H9g7tgo7E7-HyRB8Fv5=NfGDRQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1309376033-32005-1-git-send-email-dima@android.com>
	 <m2tyb81jml.fsf@firstfloor.org>
	 <CAPz4a6CbzEm3QJZ-5wsaiSH1H9g7tgo7E7-HyRB8Fv5=NfGDRQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-15"
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2011 16:43:41 -0400
Message-ID: <1309380221.26417.50.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 886
Lines: 23

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@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/