From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1030283AbVI3MKX (ORCPT ); Fri, 30 Sep 2005 08:10:23 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1030286AbVI3MKX (ORCPT ); Fri, 30 Sep 2005 08:10:23 -0400 Received: from thebsh.namesys.com ([212.16.7.65]:61915 "HELO thebsh.namesys.com") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1030285AbVI3MKW (ORCPT ); Fri, 30 Sep 2005 08:10:22 -0400 Message-ID: <433D2B21.6040406@namesys.com> Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 16:10:09 +0400 From: "Vladimir V. Saveliev" Organization: Namesys User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.8) Gecko/20050511 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Christoph Hellwig CC: LKML Subject: Re: I request inclusion of reiser4 in the mainline kernel References: <432AFB44.9060707@namesys.com> <20050918110658.GA22744@infradead.org> <432E8282.6060905@namesys.com> <20050919092444.GA17501@infradead.org> <43302CF7.2010901@namesys.com> <20050920154711.GA6698@infradead.org> In-Reply-To: <20050920154711.GA6698@infradead.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.91.0.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hello Christoph Hellwig wrote: > ... > Looking at the actual code all these point to the spin lock obsufcation > SPIN_LOCK_FUNCTIONS/RW_LOCK_FUNCTIONS from spin_macros.h which I told > to get rid of in the first round of reviews. > ... reiser4 spinlock macros provide following functionality: (1) encapsulation of locks: instead of writing spin_lock(&obj->lock), where obj is object of type foo, one writes spin_lock_foo(obj). (2) keeping information about number of locks of particular type currently held by thread (3) checking that locks are acquired in the proper order. (4) collection of spin lock contention statistics I agree that (1) is not very necessary. (2) and (4) helped a lot in early debugging. Now we are about to remove it. However, we would prefer to keep (3). It makes catching spinlock deadlocks very easy. Don't you think that makes sence? Thanks