Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] locking: Document the semantics of spin_is_locked()
From: Paul E. McKenney
Date: Tue Apr 03 2018 - 12:11:12 EST
On Tue, Apr 03, 2018 at 08:03:56AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 03, 2018 at 04:43:00PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 03, 2018 at 07:17:18AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > Suggestions for a fix? Clearly great care is required when using it
> > > in things like WARN_ON()...
> > Yeah, don't use it there, use lockdep_assert_held().
> Good point, -ETOOEARLY. ;-)
> > As I stated before in this thread, ideally we'd make *_is_locked() go
> > away entirely.
> After being reminded of the issues on UP systems, I now have much more
> sympathy for that view...
And so the main remaining use case is debug prints on !PROVE_LOCKING
builds. Which need some thought about the UP case.
Or am I missing something here?