Re: [Tipc-discussion] New file release tipc-1.3.10

[Daniel M. <da...@os...>]

On Thu, 2004-04-29 at 08:15, Jon Maloy wrote:
> Do you suggest that we delay the LKML-announcement until we have done
> these changes ? To replace all the linked lists is intrusive, and it
> may 
> take weeks re-stabilize the code. Otherwise, see my comments below.
> 
> Regards /jon
> 

Jon,

One other thing about TIPC that Mark and I have noticed that might
cause mainline acceptance problems is the:

	ref_lock_acquire(void *object,spinlock_t ** lock)
	ref_lock_deref()

	namesub_lock_deref()
	ref_unlock_discard(s->publ.s.ref);


	port_lock_deref()
	spin_unlock_bh(this->publ.lock);
	ref_unlock_discard(ref);



2 big concerns:

1. This hides the locking since a pointer is set to the "real" lock.
   The usage above just does not seem clear on what is being locked.
  
2. The lock is locked in one function and returned with the spinlock
   held and then unlock() in a different function.

Maybe more comments on functions saying which locks are assumed held
and which locks are unlocked that came in locked might clear up some
of the confusion.

Thanks,

Daniel