Re: Horrible regression with -CURRENT from "Don't busy-lock-loop in preemptable spinlocks" patch

From: Ingo Molnar
Date: Wed Jan 19 2005 - 04:30:51 EST



* Peter Chubb <peterc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> >> Here's a patch that adds the missing read_is_locked() and
> >> write_is_locked() macros for IA64. When combined with Ingo's
> >> patch, I can boot an SMP kernel with CONFIG_PREEMPT on.
> >>
> >> However, I feel these macros are misnamed: read_is_locked() returns
> >> true if the lock is held for writing; write_is_locked() returns
> >> true if the lock is held for reading or writing.
>
> Ingo> well, 'read_is_locked()' means: "will a read_lock() succeed"
>
> Fail, surely?

yeah ... and with that i proved beyond doubt that the naming is indeed
unintuitive :-)

Ingo
-
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/