lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2002]   [Jul]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: spinlock assertion macros
Date
On Wednesday 17 July 2002 04:22, Jesse Barnes wrote:
> files? Anyway, I've got spinlock and rwlock versions of them below,
> maybe they're useful enough to go in as a start? I only coded the
> ia64 version of rwlock_is_*_locked since it was easy--the i386
> versions were a little intimidating...
>
> I thought Oliver's suggestion for tracking the order of spinlock
> acquisition was good, hopefully someone will take a stab at it along
> with Dave's FUNCTION_SLEEPS() implementation.

I suppose you can simplify your interface when the code tracking the lock
holder (i.e. the address of the lock call) is there:

#define MUST_HOLD(lock) BUG_ON(!(lock)->holder)

is independent of whether lock is a spinlock or an rw_lock, so you
don't need MUST_HOLD_READ anymore. I'd even go as far as dropping
MUST_HOLD_WRITE as well, since it helps only in the corner case
where the lock is held but only for reading.

Arnd <><
-
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 13:22    [W:0.105 / U:3.080 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site