[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAE9FiQVBPoEinWC__9DF-oi8T-78YJRn95J=xXdL2GzNoKoCaQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 13:33:40 -0700
From: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, x86 <x86@...nel.org>,
Dominik Brodowski <linux@...inikbrodowski.net>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH -v12 01/15] resources: Split out __allocate_resource()
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 12:01 PM, Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 11:53 AM, Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org> wrote:
>> It will take bool lock, so we could use it in other functions that
>> hold the resource lock already.
>
> This is too damn ugly.
>
> These kinds of "conditionally take lock" things are always just bugs
> waiting to happen. Don't do it.
>
> Just make the rule be that the caller of the __allocate_resource
> helper has to hold the lock. Sure, that means that you need to then
> use split reallocate_resource() into a helper function (ie a static
> __reallocate_resource() that needs to have the lock taken by the
> caller too), but dammit, that's definitely the right thing to do
> anyway.
>
> These kinds of "bool lock" crap things have to die. They are *wrong*.
> They are a sign of bad locking rules.
You are right, please check updated one.
Thanks
Yinghai
Download attachment "probe_resource_1.patch" of type "application/octet-stream" (3516 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists