On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 06:16:50PM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote: > > 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. Err, there is no implicit locking in the calls to hlist_*. There is just two small wrappers for the bit-lock/unlock so that the callers don't have to know how the lock is overloaded onto the pointer in the list head. -- 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
