> Provide a simple fine grain locked double link list. > > It is build upon the regular double linked list primitives, spinlocks and RCU. > > Locking is peculiar in that edges are locked, this avoid the circular lock > dependancy created by the fact that the regular linked lists are circular. > > Item deletion requires that both surrounding elements are locked, however > since > the locking rules dictate that we lock elements in a single direction we have > to lock the previous element while it might be deleted under us. Hence the > requirement that all elements are RCU freed.
I think implicitly locked data structures are very bad for code readability and debugability. What's even worse here is that we have a requirement that all members are RCU freed. Note that we also have another implicitly locked (and refcounted) list implementation in klist.[ch] - if we find consensus that we want implicitly locked list we should figure out whether we want lock_list or klist semantics and stick to one of them. What uses do you have planned for this data structure? In general I think we'd be better off to simplify the data structures as in my files_list_lock proposal instead of complicating the locking. - 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/
