[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.00.0908190022570.3361@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 00:24:02 +0200 (CEST)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Kumar Gala <galak@...nel.crashing.org>
cc: Linux-Kernel List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
linuxppc-dev list <linuxppc-dev@...abs.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Subject: Re: spin_is_locked() broken for uniprocessor?
On Tue, 18 Aug 2009, Kumar Gala wrote:
> I just want to validate that what I'm seeing (for UP, non-debug features):
>
> spin_is_locked() is defined as:
>
> include/linux/spinlock.h:#define spin_is_locked(lock)
> __raw_spin_is_locked(&(lock)->raw_lock)
>
> for UP that should get us:
>
> include/linux/spinlock_up.h:#define __raw_spin_is_locked(lock) ((void)(lock),
> 0)
>
> which implies to me that spin_is_locked() will always return false. Is this
> expected behavior.
That's wrong. spin_is_locked should always return true on UP.
Thanks,
tglx
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists