Re: Semantics vs. usage of mutex_is_locked()

From: Peter Zijlstra
Date: Mon Feb 07 2022 - 10:53:39 EST

Next message: Jens Axboe: "Re: [PATCH] mm: io_uring: allow oom-killer from io_uring_setup"
Previous message: Marcel Holtmann: "Re: [PATCH v2] Bluetooth: btusb: Add a new quirk to skip HCI_FLT_CLEAR_ALL on fake CSR controllers"
In reply to: Ondrej Mosnacek: "Semantics vs. usage of mutex_is_locked()"
Next in thread: Ondrej Mosnacek: "Re: Semantics vs. usage of mutex_is_locked()"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

On Mon, Feb 07, 2022 at 04:15:27PM +0100, Ondrej Mosnacek wrote:
> Also, any opinions on the name of the new helper? Perhaps
> mutex_is_held()? Or mutex_is_locked_by_current()?

lockdep_assert_held*() and friends work on mutexes just fine.

Next message: Jens Axboe: "Re: [PATCH] mm: io_uring: allow oom-killer from io_uring_setup"
Previous message: Marcel Holtmann: "Re: [PATCH v2] Bluetooth: btusb: Add a new quirk to skip HCI_FLT_CLEAR_ALL on fake CSR controllers"
In reply to: Ondrej Mosnacek: "Semantics vs. usage of mutex_is_locked()"
Next in thread: Ondrej Mosnacek: "Re: Semantics vs. usage of mutex_is_locked()"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]