[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PATCH RFC] 'spinlock/rwlock fixes' V3 [1/1]
Given the general confusion and the difficulty of defining and
understanding the semantics of these predicates. And given that the
foo_is_locked() predicates have a history of being used to implement
ghastly kludges, how about we simply nuke this statement:
Chris Wedgwood <cw@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> if (!spin_is_locked(&p->sighand->siglock) &&
> - !rwlock_is_locked(&tasklist_lock))
> + !rwlock_write_locked(&tasklist_lock))
and be done with the whole thing?
I mean, do we really want these things in the kernel anyway? We've never
needed them before.
If we reeeealy need the debug check, just do
BUG_ON(read_trylock(...))
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Follow-Ups:
References: