Re: [PATCH] spinlock: __raw_spin_is_locked() should return true forUP

[Steven Rostedt]

On Tue, 18 Aug 2009, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 
> > Thinking about it, UP probably should have spin_is_locked always return 
> > false, but if you want to make sure you are not in a critical section 
> > with the lock not held, then use assert_spin_locked, which on UP should be 
> > a nop.
> 
> That's what we do. That said, I also think we should generally try to 
> avoid the kind of code that depends on spin_is_locked always returning 
> false, for the same reason we should try to avoid any code that depends on 
> it always returning true. 

Perhaps we can deprecate spin_is_locked and replace it with 
"expect_spin_locked" and "expect_spin_unlocked" which on SMP would return 
true and false respectively if the lock was locked. But both would always 
return true on UP.

Or do some thing similar, that would remove the ambiguity on UP.

-- Steve

--
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/