[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:0.162 / U:1.716 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site