On Tue, 5 Dec 2000, Alexander Viro wrote:
> > The check for BKL in d_move() and switch_names() seem to be unnecessary as
> > d_move() takes dcache_lock and switch_names() is only called by
> > d_move(). So, if the callers take BKL just for the sake of d_move() they
> > do not need to, but if, for other reasons, then that is fine. In any case,
> > the checks in both functions can be removed, imho. Opinions?
>
> Tigran, _please_ stop it. d_move() needs BKL. Test in question is a
> sanity check _and_ reminder of that fact, so please leave it in place.
> Microoptimizations are OK when they make the code cleaner, but here...
Alexander, in one point at least you are wrong. That one point is -- I did
_not_ suggest any optimizations (especially microoptimizations). I was
merely trying to see exactly _why_ d_move() needs a BKL since it takes
dcache_lock which already protects the lists which d_move manipulats.
You did, however provide useful information, namely the statement "d_move
needs BKL", albeit, without any proof to the truth thereof. So, I'll look
closer and try to find the proof myself.
Thank you,
Tigran
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Dec 05 2000 - 14:49:28 EST