Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] locking: Document the semantics of spin_is_locked()
From: Andrea Parri
Date: Wed Apr 04 2018 - 08:48:04 EST
On Tue, Apr 03, 2018 at 10:43:14PM +0100, David Howells wrote:
> Alan Stern <stern@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > + * Returns: 1 if @lock is locked, 0 otherwise.
> > + * However, on !CONFIG_SMP builds with !CONFIG_DEBUG_SPINLOCK,
> > + * the return value is always 0 (see include/linux/spinlock_up.h).
> > + * Therefore you should not rely heavily on the return value.
> Seems reasonable.
> It might also want to include a note that the lock isn't necessarily held by
> your own CPU. I would also use "=n" rather than "!", so maybe something like:
> * Returns: 1 if @lock is locked, 0 otherwise.
> * Note that the function only tells you that the CPU is seen to be locked,
> * not that it is locked on your CPU.
> * Further, on CONFIG_SMP=n builds with CONFIG_DEBUG_SPINLOCK=n, the return
> * value is always 0 (see include/linux/spinlock_up.h). Therefore you should
> * not rely heavily on the return value.
Thank you all for the suggestions. I plan to integrate these in the next
version of the patch, which should also include your Co-developed-by: