lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2005]   [Jan]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: Horrible regression with -CURRENT from "Don't busy-lock-loop in preemptable spinlocks" patch

    * Peter Chubb <peterc@gelato.unsw.edu.au> wrote:

    > Here's a patch that adds the missing read_is_locked() and
    > write_is_locked() macros for IA64. When combined with Ingo's patch, I
    > can boot an SMP kernel with CONFIG_PREEMPT on.
    >
    > However, I feel these macros are misnamed: read_is_locked() returns
    > true if the lock is held for writing; write_is_locked() returns true
    > if the lock is held for reading or writing.

    well, 'read_is_locked()' means: "will a read_lock() succeed" [assuming
    no races]. Should name it read_trylock_test()/write_trylock_test()
    perhaps?

    Ingo
    -
    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    [from the cache]
    ©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital Ocean