Re: Horrible regression with -CURRENT from "Don't busy-lock-loop in preemptable spinlocks" patch

From: Peter Chubb
Date: Wed Jan 19 2005 - 04:29:23 EST


>>>>> "Ingo" == Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx> writes:

Ingo> * Peter Chubb <peterc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>> Here's a patch that adds the missing read_is_locked() and
>> write_is_locked() macros for IA64. When combined with Ingo's
>> patch, I can boot an SMP kernel with CONFIG_PREEMPT on.
>>
>> However, I feel these macros are misnamed: read_is_locked() returns
>> true if the lock is held for writing; write_is_locked() returns
>> true if the lock is held for reading or writing.

Ingo> well, 'read_is_locked()' means: "will a read_lock() succeed"

Fail, surely?

--
Dr Peter Chubb http://www.gelato.unsw.edu.au peterc AT gelato.unsw.edu.au
The technical we do immediately, the political takes *forever*
-
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/