Re: [PATCH RFC] 'spinlock/rwlock fixes' V3 [1/1]

[Ingo Molnar]

* Peter Chubb <peterc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> I suggest reversing the sense of the macros, and having
> read_can_lock() and write_can_lock()
> 
> Meaning:
> 	read_can_lock() --- a read_lock() would have succeeded
> 	write_can_lock() --- a write_lock() would have succeeded.

i solved the problem differently in my patch sent to lkml today: i
introduced read_trylock_test()/etc. variants which mirror the semantics
of the trylock primitives and solve the needs of the PREEMPT branch
within kernel/spinlock.c.

	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/