Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 19 Jan 2005 19:01:04 -0800 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: [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/
| |