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]

Given the general confusion and the difficulty of defining and
understanding the semantics of these predicates. And given that the
foo_is_locked() predicates have a history of being used to implement
ghastly kludges, 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 mean, do we really want these things in the kernel anyway? We've never
needed them before.

If we reeeealy need the debug check, just do

BUG_ON(read_trylock(...))

-
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:0.165 / U:0.324 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site