Nick Piggin <npiggin@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> Providing >> locking wrappers that are exactly what users need so they don't have >> to care about it is, IMO, the right thing to do. > > Hiding the type of lock, and hiding the fact that it sets the low bit? > I don't agree. We don't have synchronization in our data structures, > where possible, because it is just restrictive or goes wrong when people > don't think enough about the locking. I fully agree. The old skb lists in networking made this mistake long ago and it was a big problem, until people essentially stopped using it (always using __ variants) and it was eventually removed. Magic locking in data structures is usually a bad idea. -Andi -- ak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx -- Speaking for myself only. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
