Messages in this thread | | | From | Paul Menage <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] lock assertion macros for 2.5.30 | Date | Thu, 08 Aug 2002 11:52:13 -0700 |
| |
In article <0C01A29FBAE24448A792F5C68F5EA47D2D4437@nasdaq.ms.ensim.com>, you write: > >> Agreed. I'll post another patch that doesn't mess with the scsi >> stuff. Maybe later I can put together a useful >> 'lock-not-held-on-this-cpu' macro. > >You don't need to put this in a macro. This test is valid >for ALL spinlocks in the kernel and can be done from inside >the spin_lock() macro itself, when spinlock debugging is on. >
There are some cases where this might not be true - e.g. in the migration code in at least one version of the O(1) scheduler (included in RedHat's 2.4.18-4) the migration_lock is taken on one CPU and released on another (following an IPI being sent from the CPU that took the lock).
So at the very least you'd need a separate set of spinlock primitives that don't perform this test, which would have to be used by anyone taking/releasing such a lock.
Paul - 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/
| |