On Thu, 8 Aug 2002, Joshua MacDonald wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 08, 2002 at 02:31:40PM -0300, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > On Thu, 8 Aug 2002, Jesse Barnes wrote:
> > > Agreed. I'll post another patch that doesn't mess with the scsi
> > > stuff. Maybe later I can put together a useful
> > > 'lock-not-held-on-this-cpu' macro.
> >
> > You don't need to put this in a macro. This test is valid
> > for ALL spinlocks in the kernel and can be done from inside
> > the spin_lock() macro itself, when spinlock debugging is on.
>
> This is just not true. When you make this assertion, it doesn't mean
> you intend to take the lock. It could have to do with lock ordering, or
> it could be testing that some lock is properly released.
Hmm, I guess you might be right. This could indeed be useful
for indirectly called functions like ->open() functions in
drivers, etc...
kind regards,
Rik
-- http://www.linuxsymposium.org/2002/ "You're one of those condescending OLS attendants" "Here's a nickle kid. Go buy yourself a real t-shirt"http://www.surriel.com/ http://distro.conectiva.com/
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Aug 15 2002 - 22:00:17 EST