Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | Date | Thu, 20 Jan 2005 17:40:38 +0100 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: [patch 1/3] spinlock fix #1, *_can_lock() primitives |
| |
* Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> wrote:
> I can do ppc64 myself, can others fix the other architectures (Ingo, > shouldn't the UP case have the read/write_can_lock() cases too? And > wouldn't you agree that it makes more sense to have the rwlock test > variants in asm/rwlock.h?):
You are right about UP, and the patch below adds the UP variants. It's analogous to the existing wrapping concept that UP 'spinlocks' are always unlocked on UP. (spin_can_lock() is already properly defined on UP too.)
Ingo
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
--- linux/include/linux/spinlock.h.orig +++ linux/include/linux/spinlock.h @@ -228,6 +228,9 @@ typedef struct { #define rwlock_yield(lock) (void)(lock) +#define read_can_lock(lock) (((void)(lock), 1)) +#define write_can_lock(lock) (((void)(lock), 1)) + #define _spin_trylock(lock) ({preempt_disable(); _raw_spin_trylock(lock) ? \ 1 : ({preempt_enable(); 0;});}) - 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/
| |