In article <0C01A29FBAE24448A792F5C68F5EA47D2D4437@nasdaq.ms.ensim.com>,
you write:
>
>> 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.
>
There are some cases where this might not be true - e.g. in the
migration code in at least one version of the O(1) scheduler (included
in RedHat's 2.4.18-4) the migration_lock is taken on one CPU and
released on another (following an IPI being sent from the CPU that took
the lock).
So at the very least you'd need a separate set of spinlock primitives
that don't perform this test, which would have to be used by anyone
taking/releasing such a lock.
Paul
-
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