Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 19 Jan 2005 09:04:03 +0100 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: 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/
| |