Re: [PATCH] m32r: Revise __raw_read_trylock()

[Matthew Wilcox]

On Fri, Sep 22, 2006 at 04:48:13PM +0900, Paul Mundt wrote:
> This might be a stupid question, but why exactly are we ripping out
> generic__raw_read_trylock() if architectures are going to implement a
> generic implementation anyways, rather than just changing it to match
> the proper semantics?

Because there is no generic definition of struct spinlock.

>  int __lockfunc generic__raw_read_trylock(raw_rwlock_t *lock)
>  {
> -	__raw_read_lock(lock);
> -	return 1;
> +	atomic_t *count = (atomic_t *)lock;
> +	atomic_dec(count);
> +	if (atomic_read(count) >= 0)
> +		return 1;
> +	atomic_inc(count);
> +	return 0;
>  }

You're assuming:

 - a spinlock is an atomic_t.
 - Said atomic_t uses RW_LOCK_BIAS to indicate locked/unlocked.

This is true for m32r, but not for sparc.  SuperH looks completely
broken -- I don't see how holding a read lock prevents someone else from
getting a write lock.  The SH write_trylock uses RW_LOCK_BIAS, but
write_lock doesn't.  Are there any SMP SH machines?
-
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/