On Fri, Jul 26, 2002 at 10:42:58AM -0700, Jesse Barnes wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 26, 2002 at 04:09:18PM +0400, Joshua MacDonald wrote:
> > In reiser4 we are looking forward to having a MUST_NOT_HOLD (i.e.,
> > spin_is_not_locked) assertion for kernel spinlocks. Do you know if any
> > progress has been made in that direction?
>
> Well, I had that in one version of the patch, but people didn't think
> it would be useful. Maybe you'd like to check out Oliver's comments
> at http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=102644431806734&w=2
> and respond? If there's demand for MUST_NOT_HOLD, I'd be happy to add
> it since it should be easy. But if you're using it to enforce lock
> ordering as Oliver suggests, then there are probably more robust
> solutions.
Why don't you just generalize the scsi version that already support this?
reinventing the wheel everywhere..
-
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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jul 30 2002 - 14:00:24 EST