[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <472E383E.7080004@cosmosbay.com>
Date: Sun, 04 Nov 2007 22:23:10 +0100
From: Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>
To: Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@...pl>
CC: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, ak@...e.de,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, acme@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] INET : removes per bucket rwlock in tcp/dccp ehash table
Jarek Poplawski a écrit :
> Jarek Poplawski wrote, On 11/04/2007 06:58 PM:
>
>> Eric Dumazet wrote, On 11/04/2007 12:31 PM:
>
> ...
>
>>> +static inline int inet_ehash_locks_alloc(struct inet_hashinfo *hashinfo)
>>> +{
>
> ...
>
>>> + if (sizeof(rwlock_t) != 0) {
>
> ...
>
>>> + for (i = 0; i < size; i++)
>>> + rwlock_init(&hashinfo->ehash_locks[i]);
>>
>> This looks better now, but still is doubtful to me: even if it's safe with
>> current rwlock implementation, can't we imagine some new debugging or
>> statistical code added, which would be called from rwlock_init() without
>> using rwlock_t structure? IMHO, if read_lock() etc. are called in such a
>> case, rwlock_init() should be done as well.
>
>
> Of course I mean: if sizeof(rwlock_t) == 0.
Given those two choices :
#if defined(CONFIG_SMP) || defined(CONFIG_PROVE__LOCKING)
kmalloc(sizeof(rwlock_t) * size);
#endif
and
if (sizeof(rwlock_t) != 0) {
kmalloc(sizeof(rwlock_t) * size);
}
I prefer the 2nd one. Less error prone, and no need to remember how are
spelled the gazillions CONFIG_something we have.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists