From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andi Kleen Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/18] fs: Introduce per-bucket inode hash locks Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2010 18:16:50 +0200 Message-ID: <87iq0za32l.fsf@basil.nowhere.org> References: <1286515292-15882-1-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> <1286515292-15882-12-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> <20101008185409.GA29251@infradead.org> <20101016075703.GO19147@amd> <20101016161642.GC16861@infradead.org> <20101016171213.GC3240@amd> <20101017004610.GB29677@dastard> <20101017022539.GA3317@amd> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Dave Chinner , Christoph Hellwig , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org To: Nick Piggin Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20101017022539.GA3317@amd> (Nick Piggin's message of "Sun, 17 Oct 2010 13:25:39 +1100") Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org Nick Piggin 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@linux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only.