Re: [PATCH] break_lock forever broken

From: Hugh Dickins
Date: Sun Mar 13 2005 - 04:38:49 EST

On Sun, 13 Mar 2005, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> > \
> > + if ((lock)->break_lock) \
> > + (lock)->break_lock = 0; \
> > } \
> if it really worth an conditional there? the cacheline of the lock is
> made dirty anyway on unlock, so writing an extra 0 is like almost free
> (maybe half a cycle) while a conditional jump can be 100+....

I wondered the same, I don't know and would defer to those who do:
really I was just following the style of where break_lock is set above,
which follows soon (unless preempted) after a _raw_whatever_trylock.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at