Re: recursive spinlocks. Shoot.

[Pete Zaitcev]

>> Let's quote the example from rubini & corbet of the sbull block device
>> driver. The request function ends like so:
> 
> defective locking in a driver is no excuse to pamper over it with
> recusrive shite.

Arjan is a little too harsh here, but on the principle I happen
to agree, because I worked with systems which allow recursive locks.
They very often cover up for programmer's lack of basic understanding.
Worse, sometimes even experienced programmers can do poorly.
I ran into the latter cathegory of code when fixing so-called
"presto" in Solaris (now replaced by Encore-originated code).

Normal spinlocks are not without problems, in particular people
tend to write:

   void urb_rm_priv_locked(struct urb *) {
     ......
   }
   void urb_rm_priv(struct urb *u) {
     spin_lock_irqsave();
     urb_rm_prin_locked(u);
     spin_unlock_irqrestore();
   }

Which eats a stack frame. We make this tradeoff on purpose,
as a lesser evil.

BTW, I do not see Linus and his leutenants rebuking the onslaught
of recursive ingenuity in this thread. Ignoring the hogwash,
or waiting and watching?

-- Pete