[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PATCH RFC] 'spinlock/rwlock fixes' V3 [1/1]
On Wed, Jan 19, 2005 at 07:01:04PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> ... 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'm all for killing that. I'll happily send a patch once the dust
settles.
It still isn't enough to rid of the rwlock_read_locked and
rwlock_write_locked usage in kernel/spinlock.c as those are needed for
the cpu_relax() calls so we have to decide on suitable names still...
-
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: