Hello Ingo, > no, you are wrong. If you want to do complex locking, you can still do > it: take a look at the dev->sem conversion patches from Peter which > correctly do this. Lockdep has all the facilities for that. > (you just dont know about them)
Ok. > the general policy message here is: do not implement complex locking. It > hurts. It's hard to maintain. It's easy to mess up and leads to bugs. Agree > Lockdep just makes that plain obvious. > Your mail and your frustration shows this general concept in happy Please, do not see it as frustration, because it isn't... I just want to understand it better. > action: judging from your comments you have little clue about dev->sem > locking and its implications and you'd happily go along and pollute the > kernel with complex and hard to maintain nested locking constructs. Now, you assume that i would _like_ complex locking. This is not true. I just want to understand what was so wrong with dev->sem, I even read in the discussions before about dev->sem, that it still was on the old semaphore interface to get around lockdep issues, and _that_ is wrong. That is bug-hiding from either the code or the tool. I just wanted to understand if this was a lockdep bug, or a real code bug. > Lockdep prevents you from doing it mindlessly, it _forces_ you to first > understand the data structures, their locking and their relationship > with each other. Then you can implement complexity, if you still want > it. > > That, Sir, is a Good Thing (tm). Completely agree. Remy -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
