On 03/20/2014 03:03 PM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
On 20 March 2014 14:54, Srivatsa S. Bhat srivatsa.bhat@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
On 03/20/2014 02:07 PM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
WARN_ON(policy->transition_ongoing);
I guess you meant WARN_ON(!policy->transition_ongoing) perhaps?
Ooops!!
I'm not sure whether its really worth it, because it kinda looks obvious. Not sure what kind of bugs it would catch. I can't think of any such scenario :-(
Just to catch if somebody is sending a POSTCHANGE one without first sending a PRECHANGE one.. Just another check to make sure things are in order.
Well, that's unlikely, since they will have to call _end() before _begin() :-) That's the power of having great function names - they make it impossible to use them incorrectly ;-) But anyway, I can add the check, just in case somebody misses even such an obvious cue! :-)
By the way, I'm also thinking of using a spinlock instead of a mutex. The critical section is tiny and we don't sleep inside the critical section - sounds like the perfect case for a spinlock.
Regards, Srivatsa S. Bhat