* menage@xxxxxxxxxx <menage@xxxxxxxxxx> [2009-07-21 08:34:51]: > On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 5:01 AM, Balbir Singh<balbir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > lock(A) > > lock(B) > > unlock(A) > > unlock(B) > > > > Tomorrow if a unsuspecting programmer does this > > > > lock(A) > > lock(B) > > unlock(A) > > > > code block > > > > unlock(B) > > > > > > What protects code block? lock B? Is that the intention? > > > > An "unsuspecting programmer" shouldn't be adding code to > multi-threaded routines without thoroughly understanding the locking. > Agreed, but why leave behind places for people to do so. There is the consistency factor as well, see below. > I guess there's no harm in this patch, but as Li says, it doesn't > really change anything. > Well all the other places do it right in the same routine. -- Balbir _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
