On Sat, Oct 08, 2016 at 01:58:07PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > Hmm. I'm not a great fan of this, because that requires an conditional > unlock mechanism. > > res = trylock_recursive(lock); > if (res == FAILED) > goto out; > ..... > > if (res == SUCCESS) > unlock(lock); > > While if you actually keep track of recursion you can do: > > if (!trylock_recursive(lock)) > goto out; > > .... > > unlock_recursive(lock); > > or even: > > lock_recursive(lock); > > unlock_recursive(lock); > > That's making lock/trylock and unlock symetric, so its obvious in the > source what's going on and the recursion tracking allows for better > debugability.
Hurm,. so I thought that in general we disliked recursive locking because it quickly turns in to a horrible mess. Adding such primitives makes it 'easy' to use recursive locking and then where does it stop?
