[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.1.10.0808291558470.3243@apollo.tec.linutronix.de>
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2008 16:02:07 +0200 (CEST)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
cc: Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@...il.com>, mingo@...e.hu,
daniel.blueman@...il.com, clameter@....com,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, rjw@...k.pl,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, bunk@...nel.org, protasnb@...il.com,
kernel-testers@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] debugobjects: fix lockdep warning #2
On Thu, 28 Aug 2008, Andrew Morton wrote:
> >
> > The lock is also promoted to irq-safe (suggested by Dan).
>
> What was the reason for this other change? I'm sure Dan is a fine chap,
> but we usually prefer a little more justification for changes ;)
I added the info already, when I applied it to the tip-tree.
> > + /* Now free them */
> > + hlist_for_each_entry_safe(obj, node, tmp, &freelist, node) {
> > + hlist_del(&obj->node);
> > + free_object(obj);
>
> I suspect that we can avoid the hlist_del() here, perhaps with a little
> effort.
>
> > +
> > + /* Now free them */
> > + hlist_for_each_entry_safe(obj, node, tmp, &freelist, node) {
> > + hlist_del(&obj->node);
> > + free_object(obj);
> > + }
> > +
>
> and the other one.
>
> But I'm not sure that it's worth putting effort into - leaving dead
> objects strung onto a partially-live list is a little bit smelly IMO.
I really feel better, when we delete them instead of throwing them
away with pointers to each other.
Thanks,
tglx
--
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