[lkml]   [2002]   [Jul]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: spinlock assertion macros
    On Friday 12 July 2002 21:24, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
    > Daniel Phillips wrote:
    > > Any idea how one might implement NEVER_SLEEPS()? Maybe as:
    > Why would you want that? AFAICS there are two kinds of "never
    > sleeping" functions: 1. those that don't sleep but don't care
    > about it and 2. those that must not sleep because a lock is
    > held.
    > For 1. no point marking it because it might change without
    > being a bug. You also don't want to mark every function
    > in the kernel SLEEPS() or NEVER_SLEEPS().
    > For 2. we already have MUST_HOLD(foo) or similar, which implicitly
    > means it can never sleep. The same is true for functions
    > with spinlocks or preempt_disable around their body.

    Thanks for that.

    So far, only the MUST_HOLD style of executable locking documentation has
    really survived scrutiny. It needs some variants: MUST_HOLD_READ,
    or names to that effect.

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:27    [W:0.021 / U:7.960 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site