On Sun, Aug 24, 2008 at 8:03 PM, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Sat, 23 Aug 2008, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >> >> Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11410 >> Subject : SLUB list_lock vs obj_hash.lock... >> Submitter : Daniel J Blueman <daniel.blueman@xxxxxxxxx> >> Date : 2008-08-22 21:48 (2 days old) >> References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=121944176609042&w=4 > > This one now has a suggested patch for Daniel to try from Vegard, but no > reply yet: > > http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=121946972307110&w=4 > Hi! > Vegard, I think your patch is a bit odd, though. The result of your patch > is > > - first loop: > > hlist_for_each_entry_safe(obj, node, tmp, &db->list, node) { > hlist_del(&obj->node); > hlist_add_head(&obj->node, &freelist); > } > > and quite frankly, I don't see what the difference between that and a > something like a simple > > struct hlist_node *first = bd->list.first; > if (first) { > bd->list.first = NULL; > first->pprev = &first; > } > > really is? > > I dunno. We don't have list splicing ops for the hlist things. Hm. I haven't really used the hlists before, so my first instinct was to do what is obvious. That's also why I put the XXX comment. Other than that, I guess open-coding list ops is also not very good programming practice? :-) But... feel free to submit your own patch. Oh, what am I saying. Vegard -- "The animistic metaphor of the bug that maliciously sneaked in while the programmer was not looking is intellectually dishonest as it disguises that the error is the programmer's own creation." -- E. W. Dijkstra, EWD1036 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-testers" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
