Eric Dumazet wrote, On 11/04/2007 10:23 PM:
> 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.
I've written it's better, too. But this could be improved yet (someday),
I hope.
Thanks,
Jarek P.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
