Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 20 Jan 2005 14:04:01 +0100 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH RFC] 'spinlock/rwlock fixes' V3 [1/1] |
| |
* Peter Chubb <peterc@gelato.unsw.edu.au> wrote:
> I suggest reversing the sense of the macros, and having > read_can_lock() and write_can_lock() > > Meaning: > read_can_lock() --- a read_lock() would have succeeded > write_can_lock() --- a write_lock() would have succeeded.
i solved the problem differently in my patch sent to lkml today: i introduced read_trylock_test()/etc. variants which mirror the semantics of the trylock primitives and solve the needs of the PREEMPT branch within kernel/spinlock.c.
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/
| |