* men...@google.com <men...@google.com> [2009-07-21 08:34:51]:
> On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 5:01 AM, Balbir Singh<bal...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > lock(A)
> > lock(B)
> > unlock(A)
> > unlock(B)
> >
> > Tomorrow if a unsuspecting programmer does this
> >
> > lock(A)
> > lock(B)
> > unlock(A)
> >
> > code block
> >
> > unlock(B)
> >
> >
> > What protects code block? lock B? Is that the intention?
> >
>
> An "unsuspecting programmer" shouldn't be adding code to
> multi-threaded routines without thoroughly understanding the locking.
>
Agreed, but why leave behind places for people to do so. There is the
consistency factor as well, see below.
> I guess there's no harm in this patch, but as Li says, it doesn't
> really change anything.
>
Well all the other places do it right in the same routine.
--
Balbir
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
contain...@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
_______________________________________________
Devel mailing list
Devel@openvz.org
https://openvz.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
