Re: Global spinlock vs local bit spin locks

[William Lee Irwin III <wli@holomorphy.com>]

William Lee Irwin III wrote:
>> I'm ambivalent now I guess. I'm not wild about bh's in the first place,
>> so infecting core code with new dependencies on them doesn't sound hot,
>> though I still can't help cringing at using a bitflag in the first bh
>> in the list to protect against concurrent teardown of the bh list,
>> which relies on the setup/teardown patterns.

On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 07:21:57PM +1000, Nick Piggin wrote:
> It's not quite as bad as that - there will be no teardown while
> any of the buffers are still in flight. The lock is simply to
> protect concurrent completion of requests, it could just as
> easily go in the last bh.

I'd hoped what I had in mind with all that would've been clearer. It
should be clear that I understand it is not overtly broken.


-- wli