Jarek Poplawski a écrit :
Jarek Poplawski wrote, On 11/04/2007 06:58 PM:
Eric Dumazet wrote, On 11/04/2007 12:31 PM:
...
+static inline int inet_ehash_locks_alloc(struct inet_hashinfo *hashinfo)
+{
...
+ if (sizeof(rwlock_t) != 0) {
...
+ for (i = 0; i < size; i++)
+ rwlock_init(&hashinfo->ehash_locks[i]);
This looks better now, but still is doubtful to me: even if it's safe with
current rwlock implementation, can't we imagine some new debugging or
statistical code added, which would be called from rwlock_init() without
using rwlock_t structure? IMHO, if read_lock() etc. are called in such a
case, rwlock_init() should be done as well.
Of course I mean: if sizeof(rwlock_t) == 0.
Given those two choices :
#if defined(CONFIG_SMP) || defined(CONFIG_PROVE__LOCKING)
kmalloc(sizeof(rwlock_t) * size);
#endif
and
if (sizeof(rwlock_t) != 0) {
kmalloc(sizeof(rwlock_t) * size);
}
I prefer the 2nd one. Less error prone, and no need to remember how are
spelled the gazillions CONFIG_something we have.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
