[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <484CD406.9080607@bull.net>
Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2008 08:56:06 +0200
From: Nadia Derbey <Nadia.Derbey@...l.net>
To: Manfred Spraul <manfred@...orfullife.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] ipc/sem.c: convert undo structures to struct list_head
Manfred Spraul wrote:
> Nadia Derbey wrote:
>
>> Manfred Spraul wrote:
>>
>>> The undo structures contain two linked lists, the
>>> attached patch replaces them with generic struct list_head lists.
>>
>>
>> If I'm not wrong the undo list is a singly-linked list.
>> So here we are moving from a set of 4 pointers to a set of 8 pointers.
>> It's true that this makes the code much much more readable and clear,
>> but I was wondering if it's worth?
>>
> IMHO yes: Everything is allocated on demand and memory is not that
> expensive.
>
> With regard to the asserts: I'm a big fan of asserts, I usually use them
> to document the locking.
And you're completely right: when I see your new semaphore code, we can
easily see what is the lock needed to protect a given field.
> Perhaps assert_spin_locked() should evalute to a nop() for
> non-CONFIG_DEBUG builds?
Well, it's unconditionally defined as a BUG_ON(!spin_is_locked())
Regards,
Nadia
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists