[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20260116152741.GA19823@lst.de>
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2026 16:27:41 +0100
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>, Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, llvm@...ts.linux.dev,
Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH tip/locking/core] compiler-context-analysis: Support
immediate acquisition after initialization
On Fri, Jan 16, 2026 at 04:20:16PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> is *much* clearer than something like:
>
> spinlock_init(&obj->lock);
> // init
> spinlock_deinit(&obj->lock);
>
> Exactly because it has explicit scope. (also my deinit naming might not
> be optimal, it is ambiguous at best, probably confusing).
WTF is spinlock_deinit even supposed to be?
I though this is about:
spin_lock_init(&obj->lock);
spin_lock(&obj->lock);
> Not to mention that the scope things are far more robust vs error paths.
They are just a really hacked up clumsy way to provide what a very
limited version of what the capability analys provides, while messing
up the code.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists