On Wed, 29 Jul 2009, Randall Stewart wrote:
Instead of using additional argument to the sctp_add_to_readq() function,
wouldn't it be sufficient to just check with mtx_owned(9) if the lock is
already held?
Hmm... I suppose one could go that way... but traditionally upper code as
told the lower code that it holds/does not hold the lock. This is true in
quite a few other functions...
Structures of the form:
if (mtx_owned(&mtx))
mtx_unlock(&mtx);
Strike me as less robust than code with either fixed assertions about lock
state from the caller, or code that accepts a flag that in effect leads to two
variants each with fixed state that can be asserted. I.e.,
void
foo(void *obj)
{
OBJ_LOCK_ASSERT(obj);
...
}
or:
void
foo(void *obj, int arg_locked)
{
if (arg_locked)
OBJ_LOCK_ASSERT(obj);
else
OBJ_LOCK(obj);
...
if (!arg_locked)
OBJ_UNLOCK(obj);
}
I guess I'm sort of OK with structure but it smacks of poor code design:
void
foo(void *obj)
{
int locked;
if (OBJ_LOCK_OWNED(obj)) {
locked = 1;
OBJ_LOCK(obj);
} else
locked = 0;
...
if (locked)
OBJ_UNLOCK(obj);
}
However, this structure doesn't lend itself to moving to lock types that can't
cheaply support mtx_owned()-like operations, such as read acquisitions of
reader-writer locks.
Robert N M Watson
Computer Laboratory
University of Cambridge
_______________________________________________
svn-src-all@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-all
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-all-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
