Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 20 Jan 2005 17:20:40 +0100 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH RFC] 'spinlock/rwlock fixes' V3 [1/1] |
| |
* Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> wrote:
> How about I just kill it now, so that it just doesn't exist, and the > dust (from all the other things) can settle where it will? > > In fact, I think I will remove the whole "rwlock_is_locked()" thing > and the only user, since it's all clearly broken, and regardless of > what we do it will be something else. That will at least fix the > current problem, and only leave us doing too many bus accesses when > BKL_PREEMPT is enabled.
in the 5-patch stream i just sent there's no need to touch exit.c, and the debugging check didnt hurt. But if you remove it from spinlock.h now then i'll probably have to regenerate the 5 patches again :-| We can:
- nuke it afterwards
- or can leave it alone as-is (it did catch a couple of bugs in the past)
- or can change the rwlock_is_locked() to !write_can_lock() and remove rwlock_is_locked() [!write_can_lock() is a perfect replacement for it].
i'd prefer #3.
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/
| |