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

    * Peter Chubb <> 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()

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 14:09    [W:0.022 / U:39.164 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site