[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20100930232339.32ed3b38.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 23:23:39 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc: Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/17] fs: icache lock i_count
On Fri, 1 Oct 2010 02:16:02 -0400 Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 11:04:16PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > No, we've run into problems *frequently*. A common case is where we
> > convert a mutex to a spinlock or vice versa. If you don't rename the
> > lock, the code still compiles (with warnings) and crashes horridly at
> > runtime.
>
> Sorry, if you run code with that obvious warnings you beg for trouble.
> If you really believe your advanced users arw too stupid to read
> compiler warnings enforcing -Werror is for sure better than obsfucating
> the code.
Well, it has happened, fairly regularly. A common scenario is where
someone has done a conversion in one tree and someone else has touched
overlapping code in another tree and when the two meet in linux-next,
splat. Renaming the field simply eliminates this.
Of course, the warnings don't get noticed because of the enormous
warning storm which a kernel build produces (generally much worse on
non-x86, btw).
Another reason for remaining a field is when we desire that it
henceforth be accessed via accessor functions - renaming it will
reliably break any unconverted code.
--
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