On Tue, Sep 05, 2017 at 07:31:44PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote: > Recursive-read and the hint I proposed(a.k.a. might) should be used for > their different specific applications. Both meaning and constraints of > them are totally different. > > Using a right function semantically is more important than making it > just work, as you know. Wrong?
For example, _semantically_: lock(A) -> recursive-read(A), end in a deadlock, while lock(A) -> might(A) , is like nothing. recursive-read(A) -> might(A), is like nothing, while might(A) -> recursive-read(A), end in a deadlock. And so on... Of course, in the following cases, the results are same: recursive-read(A) -> recursive-read(A), is like nothing, and also might(A) -> might(A) , is like nothing. recursive-read(A) -> lock(A), end in a deadlock, and also might(A) -> lock(A), end in a deadlock. Futhermore, recursive-read-might() can be used if needed, since their semantics are orthogonal so they can be used in mixed forms. I really hope you accept the new semantics... I think current workqueue code exactly needs the semantics.
