Re: [PATCH] spinlock: __raw_spin_is_locked() should return true for UP

[Kumar Gala]

On Aug 18, 2009, at 7:07 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote:

> On Tue, 18 Aug 2009, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > > Thinking about it, UP probably should have spin_is_locked always  
> > > return
> > > false, but if you want to make sure you are not in a critical  
> > > section
> > > with the lock not held, then use assert_spin_locked, which on UP  
> > > should be
> > > a nop.
> >
> > That's what we do. That said, I also think we should generally try to
> > avoid the kind of code that depends on spin_is_locked always  
> > returning
> > false, for the same reason we should try to avoid any code that  
> > depends on
> > it always returning true.
>
> Perhaps we can deprecate spin_is_locked and replace it with
> "expect_spin_locked" and "expect_spin_unlocked" which on SMP would  
> return
> true and false respectively if the lock was locked. But both would  
> always
> return true on UP.
>
> Or do some thing similar, that would remove the ambiguity on UP.

I agree its a little too easy to abuse spin_is_locked.  However we  
should be consistent between spin_is_locked on UP between with and  
without CONFIG_DEBUG_SPINLOCK enabled.  How much of this do we want to  
try and address in .31?

The PPC test really should be using assert_spin_locked and I'll send a  
patch to Ben for that.

- k
--
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/