lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2005]   [Jan]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH RFC] 'spinlock/rwlock fixes' V3 [1/1]
    On Wed, Jan 19, 2005 at 07:01:04PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:

    > ... how about we simply nuke this statement:
    >
    > Chris Wedgwood <cw@f00f.org> wrote:
    > >
    > > if (!spin_is_locked(&p->sighand->siglock) &&
    > > - !rwlock_is_locked(&tasklist_lock))
    > > + !rwlock_write_locked(&tasklist_lock))
    >
    > and be done with the whole thing?

    I'm all for killing that. I'll happily send a patch once the dust
    settles.

    It still isn't enough to rid of the rwlock_read_locked and
    rwlock_write_locked usage in kernel/spinlock.c as those are needed for
    the cpu_relax() calls so we have to decide on suitable names still...
    -
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 14:09    [W:4.322 / U:0.688 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site